Search

Background: Individuals with obesity frequently contend with pain, but few studies address the clinical impact of comorbidity within this population. This study compared the early weight loss outco...

Objective Individuals with obesity frequently contend with chronic pain, but few studies address the clinical impact of coordinated pain services on this population. The current study addresses this topic by comparing the effectiveness of a comprehensive pain rehabilitation program for patients with and without obesity. Methods A retrospective analysis of registry data was conducted. Obesity was considered as one of three weight groups, based on the following body mass index cutoffs: normal weight (18.5 to < 25 kg/m2), overweight (25 to < 30 kg/m2), and obese (> 30 kg/m2). These groups were compared on the Pain Severity Ratings (PSR) Scale, the Pain Disability Index (PDI), and the Depression, Anxiety, Stress Scales—Short Form (DASS-SF). Results Groups differed on baseline pain disability and depression. Patients with obesity had higher scores on both the PDI (P = .028) and the DASS-SF depression subscale (P = .006). Contrary to the hypothesis, after controlling for baseline score and sex there were no significant differences between weight groups with regards to PSR, PDI, or any DASS-SF subscale at discharge. At 1-year follow-up, individuals who were overweight and obese had significantly more anxiety compared to individuals whose weight was in the normal range. Conclusions Multidisciplinary pain rehabilitation programs appear to be an effective treatment intervention for patients who have concomitant chronic pain and obesity, to a degree comparable to patients who have chronic pain but do not contend with obesity. Implications for program development, clinical interventions, and future research are discussed.

Objective To evaluate the efficacy of an intensive outpatient program designed to improve functioning and reduce psychological impairment in chronic headache patients. Background Chronic headaches, occurring 15 or more days per month, for three or more months, may arise from multiple International Classification of Headache Disorders diagnoses: Chronic Migraine, Chronic Tension Type Headache, New Daily Persistent Headache, Chronic Post Traumatic Headaches, and Medication Overuse Headache. Several interdisciplinary programs that treat patients with chronic headaches have reported decreases in headache frequency. This study sought to evaluate the effect of a 3 week interdisciplinary treatment program for patients with chronic headache disorders on headache severity, functional status, and psychological impairment. Methods Subjects were 379 patients admitted to an outpatient chronic headache treatment program. Assessments of headache severity, psychological status, and functional impairment were completed by 371 (97.8%) of these at the time of admission. At discharge, 340 subjects (89.7%) provided assessment data, and 152 (40.1%) provided data at 1-year follow-up. Results Subjects' mean ratings on a 0-10 scale for their headache pain in the prior week declined, and these improvements were maintained at follow-up. (Estimated marginal means on a 0-10 scale for Average pain: admission 6.1, discharge 3.5, follow-up 3.3; for Least pain: admission 3.2; discharge 1.5; follow-up 1.3; for Worst pain: admission 8.2; discharge 6.4; follow-up 5.7), and similar results were found for current pain (admission 4.7; discharge 2.8; follow-up 2.4): Measures of functional impairment also improved following treatment, and these gains were maintained at 12 month follow up (Estimated marginal mean Headache Impact Test-6 score: admission 66.1, discharge 55.4, follow-up 51.9; Estimated marginal mean Pain Disability Index score: admission 36.2, discharge 14.1, follow-up 11.6). As measured by the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale, anxiety and reactivity to stress decreased following treatment, and remained improved at follow-up (Estimated marginal mean score for Anxiety: admission 8.7, discharge 5.2, follow-up 4.4; Estimated marginal mean score for stress: admission 14.9, discharge 7.2, follow-up 7.6). Depression decreased with treatment, but while 1-year follow-up depression scores remained significantly lower than at admission, they were also significantly higher than at discharge (Estimated marginal means: admission 13.3, discharge 4.1, follow-up 6.6). Conclusions The study supports the efficacy of the treatment model. Limitations of the study and suggestions for future research are also discussed.

A large proportion of patients who visit headache specialists suffer from chronic headache disorders, many of which are refractory to conventional therapy. In addition to the epidemic of common analgesic overuse, many patients medicate themselves with controlled substances, such as opioids, benzodiazepines, barbiturates, and other sedative hypnotics. Some of these medications have been prescribed by practitioners for either a pain-related or a comorbid condition, while some medications have been obtained illegally, without the knowledge of their doctors.

While true psychosomatic headaches are rare in clinical practice, psychological factors frequently influence the course of a headache and the degree of disability associated with it. Psychological stress, defined as situations in which an individual perceives demands upon themselves exceeding their ability to adapt effectively, produces autonomic responses which escalate headaches. Further psychological risk factors include reinforcement of attention to pain and disability, diminished activity as a pain-coping strategy, depression, anxiety, a history of childhood physical or sexual abuse, or markedly altered family functioning. Astute clinicians attend to these issues and assist their patients in seeking appropriate psychological care when indicated. Guidelines for assessment and referral are offered. This chapter outlines behavior issues and approaches in refractory daily headaches.

While true psychosomatic headaches are rare in clinical practice, ­psychological factors frequently influence the course of a headache and the degree of disability associated with it. Psychological stress, defined as situations in which an individual perceives demands upon themselves exceeding their ability to adapt effectively, produces autonomic responses which escalate headaches. Further ­psychological risk factors include reinforcement of attention to pain and disability, diminished activity as a pain coping strategy, depression, anxiety, a history of ­childhood physical or sexual abuse, or markedly altered family functioning. Astute clinicians attend to these issues, and assist their patients in seeking appropriate care when indicated. Guidelines for assessment and referral are offered.

Scientific research and headache literature suggest that psychological factors play a significant role in the maintenance, if not genesis, of primary headache disorders, as well as strongly influencing levels of functional disability. In patients with headache, there appears to be a reciprocal relationship between psychological variables and functional status, with each strongly influencing the other. This chapter deals with psychological variables affecting headache and their treatment, including stress, activity pacing, depression, anxiety, coping, trauma and abuse, and flare ups. Guidelines for behavioral treatment for patient and family are outlined, along with when and how to refer.

Proper use of medications is an important part of successfully managing migraine headache, yet migraineurs frequently switch, discontinue, or delay taking effective prescription therapies such as triptans. Medication persistence in the treatment of chronic-episodic disorders such as migraine is not well understood. In this article we review this topic, by critically reviewing studies conducted using pharmacy claims, clinical records, survey, and patient-reported data to explore acute medication use for migraine headache. While efficacy, cost, drug tolerability, and side effects impact whether a patient takes migraine medication, low perceived disease importance and factors related to the patient's internal decision-making process play a strong role in the sustained use of acute medication for migraine attack. We propose a model that combines the patient's perceived severity of migraine, their beliefs regarding the safety of acute medications, and factors related to the physician-patient relationship to identify migraineurs at high risk for medication adherence problems.

Ongoing efforts to develop mechanisms-based assessment and treatment of chronic pain have been hindered by the lack of assessment tools differentially sensitive to various phenomena underlying different mechanisms of pain. This study describes the development of an assessment instrument intended to measure neuropathic pain based on qualities of pain as they are inferred from pain descriptors. Subjects were 528 chronic pain patients from several clinics. Of these, 149 had strictly neuropathic pain, while 233 had non-neuropathic pain. Subjects completed a 32 item preliminary questionnaire, which asked them to rate their usual pain on multiple descriptors, as well as the degree to which their pain differed in response to various internal and external factors. This preliminary questionnaire was submitted to factor analysis, and this yielded 6 factors. Representatives of each of these factors were combined with additional items that demonstrated significant differences between neuropathic and non-neuropathic pain groups, to yield a 12 item Neuropathic Pain Questionnaire (NPQ). These items were able to differentiate neuropathic pain patients from non-neuropathic pain patients in a holdout sample with 66.6% sensitivity and 74.4% specificity. The newly developed instrument, NPQ, may be used for the initial screening of neuropathic pain patients. It also has the ability to provide a quantitative measure for the descriptors important in the diagnosis and assessment of neuropathic pain. Consequently, it can be used for monitoring of neuropathic pain treatments and as an outcome measure.

Objective Previous studies of pain behavior in patients with chronic pain have shown that depressed patients exhibit more pain behavior than nondepressed patients. This study sought to extend these findings and to examine the possible causes of the observed differences. Design Patients completed the short form of the Beck Depression Inventory, and their pain behavior was simultaneously rated by themselves and trained observers. Patients Subjects were 37 inpatients in a chronic pain program. Results Both depressed and nondepressed subjects rated themselves as exhibiting more pain behavior than did nurse ratings. While nurses rated pain behaviors as similar among the depressed and the nondepressed groups, patient ratings indicated significantly more pain behavior among depressed than nondepressed patients. Conclusions These results suggest that cognitive factors may influence self-ratings of pain behavior by depressed subjects.

This paper reports two studies of chronic pain patients (n = 444) relevant to the psychometric properties of the Pain Disability Index (PDI), a self-report instrument that has been used to assess the degree to which chronic pain interferes with various daily activities. In the first study, patients with high PDI scores reported more psychological distress (P less than 0.001), more severe pain characteristics (P less than 0.001), and more restriction of activities (P less than 0.001) than patients with low PDI scores, findings supportive of the construct validity of the measure. Further, a multiple regression showed that a linear combination of 9 variables predicted PDI scores (R = 0.74): time spent in bed, psychosomatic symptoms, stopping activities because of pain, work status, pain duration, usual pain intensity, quality of life, pain extent, and education. This study also showed differences for age and gender on disability. The second study involved 46 patients who had undergone inpatient treatment for their pain conditions. The study revealed modest test-retest reliability for the instrument. It also showed the PDI to be associated with the levels of pain behavior exhibited by these patients. The findings of both studies generally support the reliability and validity of the PDI as a brief measure of pain-related disability. Questions regarding its test-retest reliability and lack of association with certain pain behaviors are discussed, as are suggestions for future research.

This study examined the impact of two dimensions of pain distribution (extent, site) on patient reports of pain intensity and duration among 105 patients with chronic pain. Pain extent was found to be associated strongly with reports of pain intensity and pain duration. When variance associated with pain extent was controlled, however, pain site was not associated with reported pain intensity, a finding inconsistent with previous research. Possible explanations for this inconsistency are discussed, and directions for further research are proposed.

Patients entering treatment for chronic benign pain often are asked to complete drawings indicating the intensity and location of their pain as part of the diagnostic process. While inferences have been made from pain drawings about the relative contributions of physiological and psychological factors to the patient's experience of pain, previous research has provided only equivocal support for this practice. A reliable method for assessing pain drawings is needed both for clinical use and to assess the validity of such interpretations. While a number of systems for using such drawings have been proposed, it is not always clear exactly what aspect of the drawing is being quantified. In this study, 101 patients who presented with chronic pain were asked to complete pain drawings which were than scored for the presence or absence of pain in each of 45 body areas. Scorers achieved a high rate of inter-rater agreement with relatively little training. The body surface scores obtained were shown to correlate highly with the penalty point system developed by Ransford et al., suggesting that extent of pain may account for much of the variance in this system. The results are discussed in relation to the clinical and experimental uses for such a system.

A number of recent articles have discussed the issue of laterality of chronic pain with inconclusive results. While some authors have found evidence for a preponderance of left-sided pain, others have failed to find such evidence. Unfortunately, none of the studies have clearly explained the rules used for deciding laterality. Consequently, considerable differences exist in the frequency of lateralized versus unlateralized patients in these studies, raising the question of whether variance in results reflects actual differences or different methodologies. In the current study, 101 chronic pain patients were asked to complete a drawing indicating the location and extent of their pain. These drawings were scored for the presence and absence of pain in each of 45 body areas, using a highly reliable rating system. The results suggest that laterality may be normally distributed. The findings are discussed in light of previous research, and suggestions are made for possible uses of the rating system.