A preliminary validation of the pediatric adaptation of the Insomnia Severity Index.

INTRODUCTION: The prevalence of insomnia in children aged 5 to 12 years old is 20% to 31%. Currently, there is no well-validated questionnaire assessing all the components of insomnia in school-aged children. The present study aims to introduce an adaptation of the Insomnia Severity Index for this purpose. METHOD: Fifty-nine children aged 8- to 12-years-old with at least one anxiety disorder were recruited from youth mental health care settings. Their parents completed the pediatric adaptation of the Insomnia Severity Index which includes two scales used to report insomnia symptoms in children and their impact on the child (ISI-Child) and parents (ISI-Parent), My Child's Sleep Habits questionnaire, and the Child Behavior Checklist. RESULTS: Both the ISI-Child and the ISI-Parent scales presented adequate factorial structure (RMSEA ≤ 0.05) and internal consistency (ISI-Child: α=0.87; ISI-Parent: α=0.88). Furthermore, the results of the two scales were strongly correlated (r=0.91, P<0.001). The convergent validity was assessed using the Waking During the Night scale of the My Child's Sleep Habits questionnaire and was adequate for the ISI-Child (r=0.52, P<0.001) and the ISI-Parent (r=0.53, P<0.001). Finally, the Rule-Breaking Behavior (r ≤ 0.26, P ≥ 0.05) and Aggressive Behavior (r ≤ 0.19, P ≥ 0.19) scales of the Child Behavior Checklist showed small correlations with both subscales, indicating good divergent validity. CONCLUSION: The pediatric adaptation of the Insomnia Severity Index is a potentially reliable and valid measure for screening and assessing insomnia in children.

[Distress tolerance and experience of chronic pain]. / Tolérance à la détresse et expérience de la douleur chronique.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic pain is a highly prevalent condition that is associated with distressing somatic and emotional experiences. Consequently, an individual's distress tolerance, the perceived capacity to tolerate negative psychological and physical states, may influence their pain experience. This effect could be explained in part by a reduction in the catastrophic interpretation of pain which is associated with increased pain intensity and interference in everyday activities. AIMS: The first aim of this study was to explore the association between the components of the 5-factor model of distress tolerance and (1) pain intensity and (2) pain interference in everyday activities. The secondary aim was to assess the potential mediating effect of pain catastrophizing in the eventual association between components of distress tolerance and (1) pain intensity or (2) pain interference in everyday activities. METHOD: This is a cross-sectional study of adult (18 years or older) university students and staff with chronic pain (3 months). They were invited to complete the online questionnaire through an email invitation. Pain intensity and interference in everyday functioning were assessed with the corresponding subscales of the Brief Pain Inventory. The following instruments were used to assess the components of the 5-factor model of distress tolerance: Ambiguity Tolerance Scale (tolerance to ambiguity), Intolerance to Uncertainty Scale (reversed score: tolerance to uncertainty), Discomfort Intolerance Scale (reversed score: discomfort tolerance), Distress Tolerance Scale (tolerance to negative emotions), Frustration Discomfort Scale (tolerance to frustration). Participants also completed the Pain Catastrophizing Scale. RESULTS: Eighty participants were recruited (57 % women, mean age=33.09; standard deviation=12,87). Tolerance to negative emotions was the only component of distress tolerance that was associated with pain (ß=-0.04; 95% CI): -0.07--0.01; t (78)=-3.06, p<0.01) or pain interference in everyday functioning (ß=-0.07; 95% CI: -0.10--0.03; t (78)=-3.97, p<0.01), independently of the others. Combined with age, these factors explained 16.2 % of the variance in pain intensity and 19.4 % of the variance in pain interference. Pain catastrophizing partially mediated the association between tolerance to negative emotions and pain interference in everyday functioning, but it was not involved in the association between tolerance to negative emotions and pain intensity. CONCLUSION: Tolerance to negative emotions appears to be the most relevant aspect of distress tolerance in the context of chronic pain and is a potential clinical target that is independent and complementary from pain catastrophizing.