scholarly journals Psychological pain responses in athletes and non‐athletes with low back pain: Avoidance and endurance matter

2019 ◽  
Vol 23 (9) ◽  
pp. 1649-1662 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hannah Gajsar ◽  
Christina Titze ◽  
Claudia Levenig ◽  
Michael Kellmann ◽  
Jahan Heidari ◽  
...  
2020 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Claudia G. Levenig ◽  
Michael Kellmann ◽  
Jens Kleinert ◽  
Johanna Belz ◽  
Tobias Hesselmann ◽  
...  

Context: Low back pain (LBP) is a serious health problem, both in the general population as well as in athletes. Research has shown that psychosocial aspects, such as dysfunctional pain responses, play a significant role in the chronification of LBP. Recent research supports the relevance of the multidisciplinary concept of body image in the interpretation of LBP. Objective: To examine the differences in 2 psychosocial aspects, body image and pain responses, between athletes and nonathletes with LBP. Design: Cross-sectional design. Setting: The questionnaires were distributed in the course of LBP treatment. Participants: Data from 163 athletes (mean age = 28.69 [9.6] y) and 75 nonathletes (mean age = 39.34 [12.63] y) were collected. Interventions: Data were collected by questionnaires assessing body image, pain behavior, training activity, and LBP. Main Outcome Measures: To examine group differences between athletes and nonathletes regarding body image and pain behavior, the authors performed 2-way analyses of variance with Bonferroni post hoc tests. Results: The results showed (1) a significant main effect regarding pain responses and body image, showing that participants with eustress endurance or adaptive pain behavior revealed a more positive body image in both groups compared with participants with distress endurance or fear-avoidance behavior, and (2) a significant main effect for the factor group in the body image dimension of physical efficacy, indicating a more positive body image for athletes. Conclusion: These results suggest that considering multiple risk factors for LBP, such as body image and dysfunctional pain behavior, as well as subgrouping, might be valuable for research and for broadening therapy options.


2020 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Christina Titze ◽  
Daniela Fett ◽  
Katharina Trompeter ◽  
Petra Platen ◽  
Hannah Gajsar ◽  
...  

AbstractObjectivesIn non-athletes, fear-avoidance and endurance-related pain responses appear to influence the development and maintenance of low back pain (LBP). The avoidance-endurance model (AEM) postulates three dysfunctional pain response patterns that are associated with poorer pain outcomes. Whether comparable relationships are present in athletes is currently unclear. This cross-sectional case-control study explored frequencies and behavioral validity of the AEM-based patterns in athletes with and without LBP, as well as their outcome-based validity in athletes with LBP.MethodsBased on the Avoidance-Endurance Fast-Screen, 438 (57.1% female) young adult high-performance athletes with and 335 (45.4% female) without LBP were categorized as showing a “distress-endurance” (DER), “eustress-endurance” (EER), “fear-avoidance” (FAR) or “adaptive” (AR) pattern.ResultsOf the athletes with LBP, 9.8% were categorized as FAR, 20.1% as DER, 47.0% as EER, and 23.1% as AR; of the athletes without LBP, 10.4% were categorized as FAR, 14.3% as DER, 47.2% as EER, and 28.1% as AR. DER and EER reported more pronounced endurance- and less pronounced avoidance-related pain responses than FAR, and vice versa. DER further reported the highest training frequency. In athletes with LBP, all dysfunctional groups reported higher LBP intensity, with FAR and DER displaying higher disability scores than AR.ConclusionsThe results indicate that also in athletes, patterns of endurance- and fear-avoidance-related pain responses appear dysfunctional with respect to LBP. While EER occurred most often, DER seems most problematic.ImplicationsEndurance-related pain responses that might be necessary during painful exercise should therefore be inspected carefully when shown in response to clinical pain.


2017 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 22-28 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Rabey ◽  
Anne Smith ◽  
Darren Beales ◽  
Helen Slater ◽  
Peter O’Sullivan

AbstractBackground and aimsProvocative pain responses following standardised protocols of repeated sagittal plane spinal bending have not been reported in people with chronic low back pain (CLBP). Potential differing pain responses to movement likely reflect complex sensorimotor interactions influenced by physical, psychological and neurophysiological factors. To date, it is unknown whether provocative pain responses following repeated bending are associated with different pain sensitivity and psychological profiles. Therefore the first aim of this study was to determine whether data-driven subgroups with different, clinically-important pain responses following repeated movement exist in a large CLBP cohort, specifically using a standardised protocol of repeated sagittal plane spinal bending. The second aim was to determine if the resultant pain responses following repeated movement were associated with pain and disability, pain sensitivity and psychological factors.MethodsClinically-important (≥2-points, 11-point numeric rating scale) changes in pain intensity following repeated forward/backward bending were examined. Participants with different provocative pain responses to forward and backward bending were profiled on age, sex, pain sensitivity, psychological variables, pain characteristics and disability.ResultsThree groups with differing provocative pain responses following repeated movements were derived: (i) no clinically-important increased pain in either direction (n = 144, 49.0%), (ii) increased pain with repeated bending in one direction only (unidirectional, n = 112, 38.1%), (iii) increased pain with repeated bending in both directions (bidirectional, n = 38, 12.9%). After adjusting for psychological profile, age and sex, for the group with bidirectional pain provocation responses following repeated spinal bending, higher pressure and thermal pain sensitivity were demonstrated, while for the group with no increase in pain, better cognitive and affective psychological questionnaire scores were evident. However, these associations between provocative pain responses following movement and pain sensitivity and psychological profiles were weak.ConclusionsProvocative pain responses following repeated movements in people with CLBP appear heterogeneous, and are weakly associated with pain sensitivity and psychological profiles.ImplicationsTo date, suboptimal outcomes in studies examining exercise interventions targeting directional, movement-based subgroups in people with CLBP may reflect limited consideration of broader multidimensional clinical profiles associated with LBP.This article describes heterogeneous provocative pain responses following repeated spinal bending, and their associated pain sensitivity and psychological profiles, in people with CLBP. These findings may help facilitate targeted management.For people with no increase in pain, the lack of pain provocation following repeated spinal bending, in combination with a favourable psychological profile, suggests this subgroup may have fewer barriers to functional rehabilitation. In contrast, those with pain provoked by both forward and backward bending may require specific interventions targeting increased pain sensitivity and negative psychological cognitions and affect, as these may be may be important barriers to functional rehabilitation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document