Anger treatment via CBAT delivered remotely: Outcomes on psychometric and self-monitored measures of anger.

Studies of anger treatment have often reported on reappraisal and relaxation techniques delivered in person to forensic and psychiatric samples. The present study evaluated an integrative programme of cognitive-behavioural affective therapy (CBAT) delivered remotely to chronic pain sufferers with comorbid anger. Volunteers (N = 54) were randomly assigned to either CBAT or an Emotional Education (EE) group, both receiving hour-long videorecorded sessions twice a week for 4 weeks plus weekly calls by telephone. At 1-month post-treatment, follow-up was conducted. Outcomes were measured using the Anger Parameters Scale (APS) and its five subscales (frequency, duration, intensity, latency and threshold) as well as daily self-monitored anger logs. As hypothesized, pre- to post-treatment decline in APS total scores was significant for CBAT, Hedges' g = 0.65, 95% CI [0.14, 1.16] but nonsignificant and small for EE, g = 0.17, CI [-0.41, 0.75]. At the primary endpoint (post-treatment), APS total scores were significantly lower for CBAT than for EE. Treatment gains were maintained till follow-up. On all five APS subscales, pre-post effect sizes were medium-sized for CBAT and generally small for EE. This picture was mirrored in the self-monitored frequency, duration and intensity of anger. Findings support the efficacy of CBAT over time, its comparative efficacy over EE and its ecological generalizability. Future research could expand sample size, reduce sample imbalance, extend follow-up and strengthen treatment potency with more sessions. The present study renews enthusiasm for teletherapy and is the first to demonstrate CBAT efficacy in treating maladaptive anger in the chronic pain population.

Parameters of anger as related to sensory-affective components of pain.

OBJECTIVES: Comorbid with chronic pain are negative emotions, anger being particularly salient. To evaluate specific relationships between pain and anger, the present study deconstructed anger into five parameters and dichotomized pain into sensory vs. affective components. Hypotheses were (i) anger parameters would be significantly and positively correlated with affective pain more so than with sensory pain, and (ii) individual parameters would be differentially related to pain components. METHODS: The Anger Parameters Scale (APS) was used to rate five parameters of anger: frequency, duration, intensity, latency, and threshold. Also rated was the physical sensation of pain and the degree of distress from pain. The volunteer sample comprised n=51 chronic pain patients, varying in ethnicity/race and educational level. RESULTS: Descriptive statistics revealed: APS total M=71.52, SD=16.68, Sensory pain M=6.27, SD=2.15, Affective pain M=5.76, SD=2.28. Sensory and affective pain were highly correlated, r=0.70. APS total was significantly associated with affective pain (r=+0.28) but hardly with sensory pain (r=0.12). Two anger parameters significantly correlated with affective pain: anger frequency (r=+0.30, p<0.05) and anger threshold (r=+0.33, p<0.05). Secondarily, certain educational levels (but not gender and ethnicity/race) were associated with significantly higher APS total scores. CONCLUSIONS: Scores for all variables were in the mid-range. As hypothesized, anger was more strongly correlated with distress/suffering of pain than with physical sensation of pain, though both pain components were closely coupled. Specific findings regarding frequency and threshold imply that being angry often and being oversensitive to provocation are associated with greater distress in this context. In deconstructing anger and dichotomizing pain, the present study extends previous research by elaborating on what aspects of anger are most related to which components of pain. Moreover, certain educational levels with higher levels of anger may need special attention. Further research could examine if treatment of anger might lead to corresponding changes in chronic pain.

Sensory Versus Affective Pain Descriptors Predicting Functional Versus Psychosocial Disability.

In the lexical assessment of pain, an offshoot of the McGill Pain Questionnaire is the Pain Descriptor System (PDS) which assesses sensory, affective, and overall intensity of pain. To determine if sensory versus affective pain components might be selectively related to different aspects of disability, PDS scores were examined in relation to functional status and psychosocial impairment on the Pain Disability Questionnaire (PDQ). A sample of 629 chronic pain patients rated the degree to which each of 36 PDS words described their pain and also rated 15 items of the PDQ. Three regression models (including Group Lasso) were applied to the data. Results showed that as hypothesized, PDS sensory scores significantly predicted PDQ functional status, accounting for about 13% of the variance; PDS affective scores significantly predicted PDQ psychosocial impairment, accounting for 17% of the variance; PDS total scores significantly predicted PDQ total scores, accounting for approximately 24% of the variance. This supports the overall predictive validity of pain descriptors, while confirming more specific links between components of pain and facets of disability. Clinically, the patient's description of pain sensation may hold valuable clues to physical impairment, whereas the communication of affect/suffering is more likely to connote psychosocial difficulties in functioning. PERSPECTIVE: Regression models (including Group Lasso) were applied to data on pain and disability from 629 patients. Findings support the Pain Descriptor System in assessing pain but further suggest that sensory descriptors are predictive of physical impairment from chronic pain, whereas affective descriptors are more predictive of psychologically-related disability.