Psychosoziale Stressoren und Schmerzempfindlichkeit bei chronischer Schmerzstörung mit somatischen und psychischen Faktoren (F45.41)

War experiences and relationship problems predict pain sensitivity cross-sectionally among patients with chronic primary pain

BACKGROUND

Most patients suffering from chronic pain are more susceptible to pain and pressure due to higher pain sensitivity. Since psychosocial factors play a central role in developing and maintaining chronic pain, investigating associations between pain sensitivity and psychosocial stressors promises to advance the biopsychosocial understanding of chronic pain.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to replicate Studer et al.'s (2016) findings about associations of psychosocial stressors with pain sensitivity in a new sample of patients with chronic primary pain (ICD-11, MG30.0).

METHODS

A pain provocation test was used on both middle fingers and earlobes to assess pain sensitivity among 460 inpatients with chronic primary pain. Potentially life-threatening accidents, war experiences, relationship problems, certified inability to work, and adverse childhood experiences were assessed as potential psychosocial stressors. Structural equation modeling was used to investigate associations between psychosocial stressors and pain sensitivity.

RESULTS

We partially replicated Studer et al.'s findings. Similar to the original study, patients with chronic primary pain showed enhanced pain sensitivity values. Within the investigated group, war experiences (β = 0.160, p < .001) and relationship problems (β = 0.096, p = .014) were associated with higher pain sensitivity. In addition, the control variables of age, sex, and pain intensity also showed a predictive value for higher pain sensitivity. Unlike Studer et al., we could not identify a certified inability to work as a predictor of higher pain sensitivity.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that beyond age, sex, and pain intensity, the psychosocial stressors of war experiences and relationship problems were associated with higher pain sensitivity.

Do sleep and psychological factors influence musculoskeletal pain among nurses?

BACKGROUND

The physical factors associated with musculoskeletal pain in nursing personnel have been largely investigated, although the role of sleep and psychological factors resulting in musculoskeletal pain has not been addressed thoroughly.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to explore the prevalence of musculoskeletal pain and investigate how sleep and psychological factors influence musculoskeletal pain in a nursing group.

METHODS

Nordic standard questionnaires were distributed to 230 female nurses. Chi-square tests were performed to assess the associations between sleep problems, psychological problems, and musculoskeletal pain symptoms. Binary logistic regression analysis was also conducted to identify the primary factors influencing the prevalence of musculoskeletal pain.

RESULTS

The highest prevalence of pain was observed in the lower back, neck, and shoulders, whereas the lowest prevalence of pain was observed in the ankles, feet, elbows, and hips/buttocks. Chi-square analysis and binary logistic regression showed that sleep duration, sleep onset time, and sleep quality all significantly contributed to the development of neck and upper back pain. With regard to the psychological factors, only occupational pride and stress had a significant effect on pain; in contrast, family support did not show any significant influence.

CONCLUSION

Compared with other body regions, musculoskeletal pain in the lower back, neck, and shoulders requires more attention and preventive interventions. Special efforts should be made to shift the workday system of the nursing group because of the strong correlation between sleep problems and pain. Incentives other than penalty mechanisms should be considered seriously in nursing to boost occupational pride and relieve job stress.

[The Coupling of Pain, Anxiety, and Stress]

The Coupling of Pain, Anxiety, and Stress Abstract. There is considerable neurobiological, clinical and epidemiological evidence that the systemic phenomena of anxiety and pain closely interact. Both perceptions trigger stress activation processes and are in turn modulated by long-term stress. This overview illustrates the coupling of pain, anxiety and stress with some clinical examples. The relations shown here should help us to gain a holistic view of the individual patient and his/her psychosocial reality, in which nociceptive, affective and vegetative symptoms are often interdependent and mutually reinforcing each other.

Age and Gender as Factors of Pressure Sensitivity of Pain-Free Persons: Are They Meaningful?

Purpose

Prior findings suggest that women and elderly persons are more sensitive to pressure than men and younger persons; however, the magnitudes of these differences are substantially inconsistent. We answered the question whether the higher sensitivity of women and elderly persons is quantitatively meaningful. Specifically, we investigated if it is large enough to hamper the diagnosis, classification and follow-up of pain conditions by clinicians.

Materials and Methods

From each age stratum (18–20, 21–30, 31–40, 41–50, 51–60, 61–70, 71–80, and >80 years), 40 pain-free women and 40 pain-free men were recruited. They rated the intensity of pressure of ten Newtons over ten seconds on an analogue zero to ten rating scale. The pressure was applied on their middle fingers and ear lobes with a threshold algometer. Centile curves visualized the sex- and age-dependent fluctuation of pressure sensitivity.

Results

Over the entire age range from 20 to 80 years, the median curves fluctuated within the interval of less than two points. The distance between the median curves of men and women was also less than two points. On the average, the median difference was half a point on the finger (p = 0.249) and the ear lobe (p = 0.083).

Conclusion

Less than two points is below the minimal clinically important difference for a zero to ten analogue pain rating scale; differences smaller than one point are even below the resolution of the scale. Sex differences and age fluctuations of pressure sensitivity are negligible.

Rethinking the criteria for fibromyalgia in 2019: the ABC indicators

PURPOSE

Diagnostic criteria for fibromyalgia have been subject to debate and controversy for many years. The preliminary diagnostic criteria introduced in 2010 and 2011 have been criticized for different reasons, including questionable diagnostic specificity and a lack of an etiopathogenetic foundation. The "ABC indicators" presented in this study reflect a further development of the 2011 criteria and refer to (A) algesia, (B) bilateral, axial-symmetric pain distribution, and (C) chronic distress.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We compared the diagnostic performance of the ABC indicators with that of the 2011 criteria by analyzing the data of 409 inpatients with chronic functional pain divided into two subgroups of pain patients: Those with whole-body pain and those with pain not involving the whole body. Under the premise that FM phenotypically represents a whole-body pain disorder, sensitivity, specificity, correct classification and diagnostic odds ratios were calculated.

RESULTS

The 2011 criteria demonstrated a specificity of 68.1%, a sensitivity of 75.5%, a correct classification of 71.0% and a diagnostic odds ratio of 6.56 (CI: 4.17-10.31). The ABC indicators achieved a specificity of 88.3%, a sensitivity of 62.3%, a correct classification of 78.6%, and a diagnostic odds ratio of 12.47 (CI: 7.30-21.28).

CONCLUSION

The ABC fibromyalgia indicators demonstrated better specificity, lower sensitivity, and better overall diagnostic effectiveness than the original 2011 criteria.