Endorsing a Biopsychosocial Perspective of Pain in Individuals With Chronic Pain: Development and Validation of a Scale.

OBJECTIVES: Patients' beliefs about pain play an important role in their readiness to engage with chronic pain self-management. The central aim of this study was to validate a self-report instrument to assess a specific set of pain beliefs, patients' endorsement of a biopsychosocial model of chronic pain Patients' Endorsement of a Biopsychosocial Model of Chronic Pain Scale (PEB). METHODS: Interdisciplinary experts in the field of pain were involved in creating an instrument, the PEB Scale, to operationalize patients' endorsement of a biopsychosocial pain model. A sample of 199 patients with chronic pain was recruited to evaluate the factorial structure (principal axis factoring), the internal consistency (Cronbach alpha), the convergent and discriminant validity (correlational analyses), incremental validity (multiple, hierarchical regression analyses), and construct validity (differential population analysis) of the instrument. RESULTS: The factor analysis resulted in a unidimensional, 11-item instrument that explained 51.2% of the total variance. Cronbach alpha (=0.92) indicated high internal consistency of the created set of pain-related beliefs. Regression analyses demonstrated that PEB is a strong predictor of patients' engagement with pain self-management ( P < 0.001) after controlling for demographic variables, anxiety, depression, and other pain-related beliefs. DISCUSSION: Our results show that the PEB Scale is a highly reliable self-report instrument that has the potential to predict patients' readiness to adopt pain self-management. Future research should focus on revalidating the scale to operationalize PEB. Moreover, the PEB Scale should be implemented in longitudinal study designs to investigate its ability to predict the transition from acute to chronic pain and patients' long-term pain management.

Two Specialists, Two Recommendations: Discordance Between Urologists' & Radiation Oncologists' Prostate Cancer Treatment Recommendations.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the treatment recommendation patterns among urologists and radiation oncologists, the level of concordance or discordance between physician recommendations, and the association between physician recommendations and the treatment that patients received. METHOD: The study was a secondary analysis of data from a randomized clinical trial conducted November 2010 to April 2014 (NCT02053389). Eligible participants were patients from the trial who saw both specialists. The primary outcome was physician recommendations that were scored using an adapted version of the validated PhyReCS coding system. Secondary outcomes included concordance between physician recommendations and the treatment patients received. RESULTS: Participants were 108 patients (Mean age 61.9 years; range 43-82; 87% non-Hispanic White). Urologists were more likely to recommend surgery (79% of recommendations) and radiation oncologists were more likely to recommend radiation (68% of recommendations). Recommendations from the urologists and radiation oncologists were concordant for only 33 patients (30.6%). Most patients received a treatment that both physicians recommended (59%); however, 35% received a treatment that only one of their physicians recommended. When discordant, urologists more often recommended surgery and radiation oncologists recommended radiation and surgery as equally appropriate options. CONCLUSION: Urologists and radiation oncologists are more likely to differ than agree in their treatment recommendations for the same patients with clinically localized prostate cancer and more likely to favor treatment aligned with their specialty. Additional studies are needed to better understand how patients make decisions after meeting with two different specialists to inform the development of best practices within oncology clinics.

Changes in Pain Catastrophizing and Fear-Avoidance Beliefs as Mediators of Early Physical Therapy on Disability and Pain in Acute Low-Back Pain: A Secondary Analysis of a Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The Fear-Avoidance Model (FAM) of chronic pain posits that pain catastrophizing and fear-avoidance beliefs are prognostic for disability and chronicity. In acute low-back pain, early physical therapy (PT) is effective in reducing disability in some patients. How early PT impacts short- and long-term changes in disability for patients with acute pain is unknown. Based on the FAM, we hypothesized that early reductions in pain catastrophizing and fear-avoidance beliefs would mediate early PT's effect on changes in disability (primary outcome) and pain intensity (secondary outcome) over 3 months and 1 year. SUBJECTS: Participants were 204 patients with low-back pain of <16 days duration, who enrolled in a clinical trial (NCT01726803) comparing early PT sessions or usual care provided over 4 weeks. METHODS: Patients completed the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS), Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ work and physical activity scales), and outcomes (Oswestry Disability Index and Numeric Pain Rating Scale) at baseline, 4 weeks, 3 months, and 1 year. We applied longitudinal mediation analysis with single and multiple mediators. RESULTS: Early PT led to improvements in disability and pain over 3 months but not 1 year. In the single mediator model, 4-week reductions in pain catastrophizing mediated early PT's effects on 3-month disability and pain intensity improvements, explaining 16% and 22% of the association, respectively, but the effects were small. Pain catastrophizing and fear-avoidance beliefs did not jointly mediate these associations. CONCLUSIONS: In acute low-back pain, early PT may improve disability and pain outcomes at least partly through reducing patients' catastrophizing.

Temperament, childhood illness burden, and illness behavior in early adulthood.

OBJECTIVE: Illness behaviors-or responses to bodily symptoms-predict individuals' recovery and functioning; however, there has been little research on the early life personality antecedents of illness behavior. This study's primary aims were to evaluate (a) childhood temperament traits (i.e., emotionality and sociability) as predictors of adult illness behaviors, independent of objective health; and (b) adult temperament traits for mediation of childhood temperament's associations. METHOD: Participants included 714 (53% male; 350 adoptive family and 364 control family) children and siblings from the Colorado Adoption Project (CAP; Plomin & DeFries, 1983). Structural regression analyses evaluated paths from childhood temperament to illness behavior (i.e., somatic complaints, sick days, and medication use) at two adulthood assessments (CAP years 21 and 30). Analyses controlled for participant age, sex, family type (adoptive or control), adopted status, parent education/occupation, and middle childhood illnesses, doctor visits, and life events stress. RESULTS: Latent illness behavior factors were established across 2 adulthood assessments. Multilevel path analyses revealed that higher emotionality (fearfulness) in adulthood-but not childhood temperament-predicted higher levels of illness behavior at both assessments. Lastly, lower emotionality-fearfulness partially mediated the effect of higher childhood sociability on adult illness behavior. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest the importance of childhood illness experiences and adult emotionality (fearfulness) in shaping illness behavior in early adulthood. They also suggest a small, protective role of childhood sociability on reduced trait fearfulness in adulthood. These findings broaden our understanding of the prospective links between temperament and illness behavior development, suggesting distinct associations from early life illness experiences. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).