慢性疼痛患者的不可信主诉和症状效度。

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Pain Research & Management Pub Date : 2025-09-23 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1155/prm/7422265
Jared G Smith, Linda Monaci, Martin D van den Broek
{"title":"慢性疼痛患者的不可信主诉和症状效度。","authors":"Jared G Smith, Linda Monaci, Martin D van den Broek","doi":"10.1155/prm/7422265","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Introduction:</b> The multifactorial nature of pain complicates assessment of the validity of presenting symptoms and behaviours in people with chronic pain. Recently, the Personal Problems Questionnaire (PPQ) was developed to assess genuine and noncredible cognitive, emotional and physical complaints. Here, the PPQ was used to investigate the extent to which patients with chronic pain report noncredible complaints and the relationship with pain severity and measures of cognitive performance validity and symptom over-reporting. <b>Materials and Methods:</b> Seventy-five participants with chronic pain recruited from outpatient and pain management programme clinics completed the clinical and validity scales of the PPQ, the short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ) subscales and the Medical Symptom Validity Test (MSVT), and a subsample (<i>n</i> = 27) completed the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI). <b>Results:</b> Significant mean (T-score±SD) elevations were observed across the PPQ cognitive (64.5 ± 13.1), emotional (65.1 ± 13.2) and physical (77.4 ± 11.0) clinical domains. Endorsement of implausible complaints on the PPQ was common; 35.6% of patients endorsed noncredible pain/physical complaints, while 19.2% and 33.3%, respectively, reported implausible cognitive and emotional difficulties. Multivariate analyses indicated that the odds of likely noncredible responding significantly increased in cognitive (34%) and emotional domains (26%) and in the physical domain (12%) for every point increase on the SF-MPQ affective and sensory pain subscales, respectively. Noncredible symptom reporting was elevated in those receiving disability benefits/involved in litigation (<i>n</i> = 27), but not significantly after controlling for pain severity. Negative impression management on the PAI was associated with implausible cognitive and emotional symptom endorsement, but there was a limited relationship between PPQ validity scales and MSVT underperformance. <b>Conclusion:</b> The PPQ is a potentially useful tool in the assessment of chronic pain patients, with implausible symptom endorsement found in a significant proportion, although this may not reflect intentional exaggeration.</p>","PeriodicalId":19913,"journal":{"name":"Pain Research & Management","volume":"2025 ","pages":"7422265"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12483733/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Noncredible Complaints and Symptom Validity in Patients With Chronic Pain.\",\"authors\":\"Jared G Smith, Linda Monaci, Martin D van den Broek\",\"doi\":\"10.1155/prm/7422265\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Introduction:</b> The multifactorial nature of pain complicates assessment of the validity of presenting symptoms and behaviours in people with chronic pain. Recently, the Personal Problems Questionnaire (PPQ) was developed to assess genuine and noncredible cognitive, emotional and physical complaints. Here, the PPQ was used to investigate the extent to which patients with chronic pain report noncredible complaints and the relationship with pain severity and measures of cognitive performance validity and symptom over-reporting. <b>Materials and Methods:</b> Seventy-five participants with chronic pain recruited from outpatient and pain management programme clinics completed the clinical and validity scales of the PPQ, the short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ) subscales and the Medical Symptom Validity Test (MSVT), and a subsample (<i>n</i> = 27) completed the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI). <b>Results:</b> Significant mean (T-score±SD) elevations were observed across the PPQ cognitive (64.5 ± 13.1), emotional (65.1 ± 13.2) and physical (77.4 ± 11.0) clinical domains. Endorsement of implausible complaints on the PPQ was common; 35.6% of patients endorsed noncredible pain/physical complaints, while 19.2% and 33.3%, respectively, reported implausible cognitive and emotional difficulties. Multivariate analyses indicated that the odds of likely noncredible responding significantly increased in cognitive (34%) and emotional domains (26%) and in the physical domain (12%) for every point increase on the SF-MPQ affective and sensory pain subscales, respectively. Noncredible symptom reporting was elevated in those receiving disability benefits/involved in litigation (<i>n</i> = 27), but not significantly after controlling for pain severity. Negative impression management on the PAI was associated with implausible cognitive and emotional symptom endorsement, but there was a limited relationship between PPQ validity scales and MSVT underperformance. <b>Conclusion:</b> The PPQ is a potentially useful tool in the assessment of chronic pain patients, with implausible symptom endorsement found in a significant proportion, although this may not reflect intentional exaggeration.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19913,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pain Research & Management\",\"volume\":\"2025 \",\"pages\":\"7422265\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12483733/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pain Research & Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1155/prm/7422265\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pain Research & Management","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/prm/7422265","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介:疼痛的多因素性质使慢性疼痛患者表现症状和行为的有效性评估复杂化。最近,个人问题问卷(PPQ)被开发出来评估真实的和不可信的认知、情绪和身体的抱怨。在这里,PPQ被用来调查慢性疼痛患者报告不可信主诉的程度,以及与疼痛严重程度、认知表现有效性和症状过度报告的测量的关系。材料与方法:从门诊和疼痛管理项目诊所招募的75名慢性疼痛患者完成了PPQ的临床和效度量表、短格式McGill疼痛问卷(SF-MPQ)子量表和医学症状效度测试(MSVT),并完成了一个子样本(n = 27)人格评估量表(PAI)。结果:在PPQ认知(64.5±13.1)、情绪(65.1±13.2)和身体(77.4±11.0)临床领域均观察到显著的平均(t评分±SD)升高。对PPQ上不合理的投诉的认可是常见的;35.6%的患者承认难以置信的疼痛/身体抱怨,而分别有19.2%和33.3%的患者报告难以置信的认知和情感困难。多变量分析表明,SF-MPQ情感和感觉疼痛亚量表每增加一分,认知领域(34%)、情绪领域(26%)和身体领域(12%)可能出现不可信反应的几率分别显著增加。不可信的症状报告在接受残疾福利/参与诉讼的患者中增加(n = 27),但在控制疼痛严重程度后不显著。负面印象管理与难以置信的认知和情绪症状认可相关,但PPQ效度量表与MSVT表现不佳之间的关系有限。结论:PPQ是评估慢性疼痛患者的潜在有用工具,尽管这可能不是故意夸大,但在很大程度上发现了不可信的症状认可。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Noncredible Complaints and Symptom Validity in Patients With Chronic Pain.

Noncredible Complaints and Symptom Validity in Patients With Chronic Pain.

Introduction: The multifactorial nature of pain complicates assessment of the validity of presenting symptoms and behaviours in people with chronic pain. Recently, the Personal Problems Questionnaire (PPQ) was developed to assess genuine and noncredible cognitive, emotional and physical complaints. Here, the PPQ was used to investigate the extent to which patients with chronic pain report noncredible complaints and the relationship with pain severity and measures of cognitive performance validity and symptom over-reporting. Materials and Methods: Seventy-five participants with chronic pain recruited from outpatient and pain management programme clinics completed the clinical and validity scales of the PPQ, the short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ) subscales and the Medical Symptom Validity Test (MSVT), and a subsample (n = 27) completed the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI). Results: Significant mean (T-score±SD) elevations were observed across the PPQ cognitive (64.5 ± 13.1), emotional (65.1 ± 13.2) and physical (77.4 ± 11.0) clinical domains. Endorsement of implausible complaints on the PPQ was common; 35.6% of patients endorsed noncredible pain/physical complaints, while 19.2% and 33.3%, respectively, reported implausible cognitive and emotional difficulties. Multivariate analyses indicated that the odds of likely noncredible responding significantly increased in cognitive (34%) and emotional domains (26%) and in the physical domain (12%) for every point increase on the SF-MPQ affective and sensory pain subscales, respectively. Noncredible symptom reporting was elevated in those receiving disability benefits/involved in litigation (n = 27), but not significantly after controlling for pain severity. Negative impression management on the PAI was associated with implausible cognitive and emotional symptom endorsement, but there was a limited relationship between PPQ validity scales and MSVT underperformance. Conclusion: The PPQ is a potentially useful tool in the assessment of chronic pain patients, with implausible symptom endorsement found in a significant proportion, although this may not reflect intentional exaggeration.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Pain Research & Management
Pain Research & Management CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
109
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Pain Research and Management is a peer-reviewed, Open Access journal that publishes original research articles, review articles, and clinical studies in all areas of pain management. The most recent Impact Factor for Pain Research and Management is 1.685 according to the 2015 Journal Citation Reports released by Thomson Reuters in 2016.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信