Research Diagnostic Criteria Axis II in screening and as a part of biopsychosocial subtyping of Finnish patients with temporomandibular disorder pain.

Tuija I Suvinen, Pentti Kemppainen, Yrsa Le Bell, Anna Valjakka, Tero Vahlberg, Heli Forssell
{"title":"Research Diagnostic Criteria Axis II in screening and as a part of biopsychosocial subtyping of Finnish patients with temporomandibular disorder pain.","authors":"Tuija I Suvinen,&nbsp;Pentti Kemppainen,&nbsp;Yrsa Le Bell,&nbsp;Anna Valjakka,&nbsp;Tero Vahlberg,&nbsp;Heli Forssell","doi":"10.11607/jop.1145","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>To assess Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD) Axis II variables in an initial psychosocial screening and as a part of biopsychosocial subtyping of Finnish referral patients with TMD pain for adjunct multidisciplinary assessment.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Consecutive Finnish referral patients with TMD pain (n = 135) participated in this questionnaire-based survey. Psychosocial screening was based on Graded Chronic Pain Scale (GCPS) and culturally adjusted Symptom Checklist 90-revised (SCL-90R) depression scale scores and subtyping on GCPS pain-related interference in accordance with previous treatment tailoring studies. Biopsychosocial subtyping variables included symptoms of depression and somatization, general health, pain-related worry, sleep dysfunction, and coping ability. Subtype comparisons were analyzed with Bonferroni adjusted P values and multivariable logistic regression (SAS 9.3).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Based on psychosocial screening, 44% of the patients were psychosocially uncompromised (TMD subtype 1), 33% moderately, and 23% severely compromised (TMD subtypes 2 and 3). Compared to TMD subtype 1, TMD subtype 2 patients reported intermediate scores, and the most vulnerable TMD subtype 3 had the poorest general health, most elevated depression, somatization, worry and sleep dysfunction, and poor coping ability (P < .05). According to multivariable logistic regression, depression and worry levels were significantly higher in TMD subtype 3 compared to TMD subtype 1, whilst patients in TMD subtypes 1 and 2 reported significantly better coping ability compared to TMD subtype 3 (P < .05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The Finnish RDC/TMD Axis II was found reliable in initial TMD pain patient screening and with further biopsychosocial assessment identified three main TMD subtypes, two with compromised psychosocial profiles for adjunct multidisciplinary assessment.</p>","PeriodicalId":16649,"journal":{"name":"Journal of orofacial pain","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.11607/jop.1145","citationCount":"29","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of orofacial pain","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11607/jop.1145","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 29

Abstract

Aims: To assess Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD) Axis II variables in an initial psychosocial screening and as a part of biopsychosocial subtyping of Finnish referral patients with TMD pain for adjunct multidisciplinary assessment.

Methods: Consecutive Finnish referral patients with TMD pain (n = 135) participated in this questionnaire-based survey. Psychosocial screening was based on Graded Chronic Pain Scale (GCPS) and culturally adjusted Symptom Checklist 90-revised (SCL-90R) depression scale scores and subtyping on GCPS pain-related interference in accordance with previous treatment tailoring studies. Biopsychosocial subtyping variables included symptoms of depression and somatization, general health, pain-related worry, sleep dysfunction, and coping ability. Subtype comparisons were analyzed with Bonferroni adjusted P values and multivariable logistic regression (SAS 9.3).

Results: Based on psychosocial screening, 44% of the patients were psychosocially uncompromised (TMD subtype 1), 33% moderately, and 23% severely compromised (TMD subtypes 2 and 3). Compared to TMD subtype 1, TMD subtype 2 patients reported intermediate scores, and the most vulnerable TMD subtype 3 had the poorest general health, most elevated depression, somatization, worry and sleep dysfunction, and poor coping ability (P < .05). According to multivariable logistic regression, depression and worry levels were significantly higher in TMD subtype 3 compared to TMD subtype 1, whilst patients in TMD subtypes 1 and 2 reported significantly better coping ability compared to TMD subtype 3 (P < .05).

Conclusion: The Finnish RDC/TMD Axis II was found reliable in initial TMD pain patient screening and with further biopsychosocial assessment identified three main TMD subtypes, two with compromised psychosocial profiles for adjunct multidisciplinary assessment.

研究诊断标准II轴筛选和作为芬兰颞下颌紊乱疼痛患者的生物心理社会分型的一部分。
目的:评估颞下颌疾病(RDC/TMD)轴II变量在初始社会心理筛查中的研究诊断标准,并作为芬兰转诊TMD疼痛患者的生物心理社会亚型的一部分,用于辅助多学科评估。方法:芬兰连续转诊的TMD疼痛患者(n = 135)参加了这项以问卷为基础的调查。心理社会筛查基于分级慢性疼痛量表(GCPS)和文化调整症状检查表90-修订版(SCL-90R)抑郁量表得分,并根据先前的治疗定制研究对GCPS疼痛相关干扰进行分型。生物心理社会亚型变量包括抑郁和躯体化症状、一般健康状况、疼痛相关担忧、睡眠障碍和应对能力。采用Bonferroni校正P值和多变量logistic回归(SAS 9.3)分析亚型比较。结果:基于心理社会筛查,44%的患者心理社会无损害(TMD亚型1),33%的患者为中度损害,23%的患者为重度损害(TMD亚型2和3)。与TMD亚型1相比,TMD亚型2患者的评分为中等,最脆弱的TMD亚型3患者总体健康状况最差,抑郁、躯体化、焦虑和睡眠障碍发生率最高,应对能力差(P < 0.05)。多变量logistic回归结果显示,TMD亚型3患者抑郁、焦虑水平显著高于TMD亚型1,TMD亚型1、2患者应对能力显著优于TMD亚型3 (P < 0.05)。结论:芬兰RDC/TMD Axis II在最初的TMD疼痛患者筛查中被发现是可靠的,并且通过进一步的生物心理社会评估确定了三种主要的TMD亚型,其中两种具有受损的社会心理特征,用于辅助的多学科评估。
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
Journal of orofacial pain
Journal of orofacial pain 医学-牙科与口腔外科
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>12 weeks
×
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