Impact of Pain Self-Efficacy on Health Outcomes in High-Impact Chronic Pain: A Longitudinal Study.

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Dokyoung Sophia You, Edward Lannon, Samsuk Kim, Troy C Dildine, Kenneth A Weber, Emma Raney, Sean C Mackey
{"title":"Impact of Pain Self-Efficacy on Health Outcomes in High-Impact Chronic Pain: A Longitudinal Study.","authors":"Dokyoung Sophia You, Edward Lannon, Samsuk Kim, Troy C Dildine, Kenneth A Weber, Emma Raney, Sean C Mackey","doi":"10.1097/AJP.0000000000001295","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>High-impact chronic pain (HICP), affecting 36.4% of individuals with chronic pain, significantly limits work, social, and self-care activities. Effective treatments for HICP remain elusive. In addition to pain catastrophizing, growing evidence suggests that pain self-efficacy may be a treatment target for HICP. Our study examines the relative contributions of pain self-efficacy and catastrophizing to health outcomes in patients with HICP.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 259 patients with chronic pain (154 with HICP; 105 without HICP) completed validated measures at baseline and three months later. These included the Chronic Pain Self-Efficacy Scale (CPSS), the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS), and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) domains for physical health (i.e., pain interference, physical function, fatigue, and sleep disturbance) and psychosocial health (i.e., depression, anxiety, anger, and social isolation).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Repeated measures MANOVA showed a significant group effect (HICP vs. No-HICP), but no significant time or group by time interaction effect. The HICP group reported significantly lower CPSS scores and higher PCS scores than the No-HICP group, alongside worse physical and psychosocial health outcomes (η²=0.076~0.445). Pain self-efficacy explained a greater proportion of group differences in health outcomes (52.9-71.7%) compared to pain catastrophizing (10.1-43.3%). Especially, self-efficacy in activity engagement accounted for the largest health disparities between the groups.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Findings highlight pain self-efficacy as a critical treatment target for HICP, with greater predictive utility than pain catastrophizing. Enhancing self-efficacy through tailored interventions may reduce the burden of HICP. Future studies should prioritize self-efficacy-based interventions and explore their scalability and long-term impact.</p>","PeriodicalId":50678,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Journal of Pain","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Journal of Pain","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/AJP.0000000000001295","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: High-impact chronic pain (HICP), affecting 36.4% of individuals with chronic pain, significantly limits work, social, and self-care activities. Effective treatments for HICP remain elusive. In addition to pain catastrophizing, growing evidence suggests that pain self-efficacy may be a treatment target for HICP. Our study examines the relative contributions of pain self-efficacy and catastrophizing to health outcomes in patients with HICP.

Methods: A total of 259 patients with chronic pain (154 with HICP; 105 without HICP) completed validated measures at baseline and three months later. These included the Chronic Pain Self-Efficacy Scale (CPSS), the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS), and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) domains for physical health (i.e., pain interference, physical function, fatigue, and sleep disturbance) and psychosocial health (i.e., depression, anxiety, anger, and social isolation).

Results: Repeated measures MANOVA showed a significant group effect (HICP vs. No-HICP), but no significant time or group by time interaction effect. The HICP group reported significantly lower CPSS scores and higher PCS scores than the No-HICP group, alongside worse physical and psychosocial health outcomes (η²=0.076~0.445). Pain self-efficacy explained a greater proportion of group differences in health outcomes (52.9-71.7%) compared to pain catastrophizing (10.1-43.3%). Especially, self-efficacy in activity engagement accounted for the largest health disparities between the groups.

Discussion: Findings highlight pain self-efficacy as a critical treatment target for HICP, with greater predictive utility than pain catastrophizing. Enhancing self-efficacy through tailored interventions may reduce the burden of HICP. Future studies should prioritize self-efficacy-based interventions and explore their scalability and long-term impact.

高强度慢性疼痛患者疼痛自我效能对健康结果的影响:一项纵向研究
目的:高影响性慢性疼痛(HICP),影响36.4%的慢性疼痛患者,严重限制了工作、社交和自我保健活动。HICP的有效治疗方法仍然难以捉摸。除了疼痛灾难化,越来越多的证据表明,疼痛自我效能感可能是HICP的治疗目标。我们的研究探讨了疼痛自我效能感和灾难化对HICP患者健康结果的相对贡献。方法:259例慢性疼痛患者(154例合并HICP;105例无HICP)在基线和三个月后完成了有效的测量。这些包括慢性疼痛自我效能量表(CPSS)、疼痛灾难化量表(PCS)和患者报告结果测量信息系统(PROMIS)的身体健康(即疼痛干扰、身体功能、疲劳和睡眠障碍)和心理社会健康(即抑郁、焦虑、愤怒和社会孤立)领域。结果:重复测量方差分析显示组间效应(HICP vs. no -HICP)显著,但时间和组间交互作用不显著。与无HICP组相比,HICP组的CPSS评分和PCS评分显著降低,同时身体和心理健康结果更差(η²=0.076~0.445)。与疼痛灾难化(10.1-43.3%)相比,疼痛自我效能感解释了更大比例的健康结果组差异(52.9-71.7%)。特别是,活动参与中的自我效能感是两组之间最大的健康差异。讨论:研究结果强调疼痛自我效能是HICP的关键治疗目标,比疼痛灾难化具有更大的预测效用。通过有针对性的干预措施提高自我效能感可以减轻HICP的负担。未来的研究应优先考虑基于自我效能的干预措施,并探索其可扩展性和长期影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Clinical Journal of Pain
Clinical Journal of Pain 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
3.40%
发文量
118
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: ​​​The Clinical Journal of Pain explores all aspects of pain and its effective treatment, bringing readers the insights of leading anesthesiologists, surgeons, internists, neurologists, orthopedists, psychiatrists and psychologists, clinical pharmacologists, and rehabilitation medicine specialists. This peer-reviewed journal presents timely and thought-provoking articles on clinical dilemmas in pain management; valuable diagnostic procedures; promising new pharmacological, surgical, and other therapeutic modalities; psychosocial dimensions of pain; and ethical issues of concern to all medical professionals. The journal also publishes Special Topic issues on subjects of particular relevance to the practice of pain medicine.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信