Search

This systematic review examined the extent to which measures of religiosity/spirituality (R/S): (1) are associated with pain, function, pain-related beliefs (beliefs), coping responses, and catastrophizing in people with chronic pain; and (2) moderate the association between beliefs, coping and catastrophizing, and pain and function. Experimental and observational studies examining at least one of these research questions in adults with chronic pain were eligible. Two reviewers independently performed eligibility screening, data extraction, and quality assessment. Twenty studies were included. Most studies focused on the association between R/S and pain or function. When significant associations emerged, those between R/S and psychological function were weak to strong and positive; those between religious/spiritual well-being and pain and physical dysfunction were negative, but weak. Few studies examined the associations between R/S and beliefs/coping/catastrophizing; none examined the moderation role of R/S. The findings suggest that R/S is associated with pain and psychological function in people with chronic pain, and that viewing oneself as being "spiritual," regardless of religion, may contribute to positive psychological adjustment. More research is needed to determine the reliability of this finding. PROSPERO registry CRD42018088803. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To evaluate the extent to which pain-related beliefs, appraisals, coping, and catastrophizing differ between countries, language groups, and country economy. Design Systematic review. Methods Two independent reviewers searched 15 databases without restriction for date or language of publication. Studies comparing pain beliefs/appraisals, coping, or catastrophizing across two or more countries or language groups in adults with chronic pain (pain for longer than three months) were included. Two independent reviewers extracted data and performed the quality appraisal. Study quality was rated as low, moderate, or high using a 10-item modified STROBE checklist. Effect sizes were reported as small (0.20–0.49), medium (0.50–0.79), or large (≥0.80). Results We retrieved 1,365 articles, read 42 potential full texts, and included 10 (four moderate-quality, six low-quality) studies. A total of 6,797 adults with chronic pain (33% with chronic low back pain) were included from 16 countries. Meta-analysis was not performed because of heterogeneity in the studies. A total of 103 effect sizes were computed for individual studies, some of which indicated between-country differences in pain beliefs, coping, and catastrophizing. Of these, the majority of effect sizes for pain beliefs/appraisal (60%; eight large, eight medium, and eight small), for coping (60%; seven large, 11 medium, and 16 small), and for catastrophizing (50%; two medium, one small) evidenced statistically significant between-country differences, although study quality was low to moderate. Conclusions In 50% or more of the studies, mean scores in the measures of pain beliefs and appraisals, coping responses, and catastrophizing were significantly different between people from different countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The original publication of the article contains an error in the co-author name and textual error in Results section. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]