scholarly journals Comparative Associations of Working Memory and Pain Catastrophizing With Chronic Low Back Pain Intensity

2016 ◽  
Vol 96 (7) ◽  
pp. 1049-1056 ◽  
Author(s):  
Corey B. Simon ◽  
Trevor A. Lentz ◽  
Mark D. Bishop ◽  
Joseph L. Riley ◽  
Roger B. Fillingim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Pain Intensity ◽  
Chronic Low Back Pain ◽  
Pain Catastrophizing ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Daily Pain

Abstract Background Because of its high global burden, determining biopsychosocial influences of chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a research priority. Psychological factors such as pain catastrophizing are well established. However, cognitive factors such as working memory warrant further investigation to be clinically useful. Objective The purpose of this study was to determine how working memory and pain catastrophizing are associated with CLBP measures of daily pain intensity and movement-evoked pain intensity. Design This study was a cross-sectional analysis of individuals with ≥3 months of CLBP (n=60) compared with pain-free controls (n=30). Method Participants completed measures of working memory, pain catastrophizing, and daily pain intensity. Movement-evoked pain intensity was assessed using the Back Performance Scale. Outcome measures were compared between individuals with CLBP and those who were pain-free using nonparametric testing. Associations were determined using multivariate regression analyses. Results Participants with CLBP (mean age=47.7 years, 68% female) had lower working memory performance (P=.008) and higher pain catastrophizing (P<.001) compared with pain-free controls (mean age=47.6 years, 63% female). For individuals with CLBP, only working memory remained associated with daily pain intensity (R2=.07, standardized beta=−.308, P=.041) and movement-evoked pain intensity (R2=.14, standardized beta=−.502, P=.001) after accounting for age, sex, education, and interactions between pain catastrophizing and working memory. Limitations The cross-sectional design prevented prospective analysis. Findings also are not indicative of overall working memory (eg, spatial) or cognitive performance. Conclusion Working memory demonstrated the strongest association with daily pain and movement-evoked pain intensity compared with (and after accounting for) established CLBP factors. Future research will elucidate the prognostic value of working memory on prevention and recovery of CLBP.

scholarly journals Double-blind, pragmatic, randomized placebo-controlled trial of 8-week self-administered at-home behavioral skills-based virtual reality (VR) for chronic low back pain (during COVID-19) (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Beth Darnall ◽  
Laura Garcia ◽  
Brandon Birckhead ◽  
Parthasarathy Krishnamurthy ◽  
Ian Mackey ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Pain Intensity ◽  
Chronic Low Back Pain ◽  
User Satisfaction ◽  
Pain Catastrophizing ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Average Pain Intensity ◽  
Average Pain

BACKGROUND Chronic low back pain is the most prevalent chronic pain condition worldwide and access to behavioral pain treatment is limited. Virtual reality (VR) is an immersive technology that may provide effective behavioral therapeutics for chronic pain. OBJECTIVE To conduct a double-blind, parallel arm, single cohort, remote, randomized placebo-controlled trial for a self-administered behavioral skills-based VR program in community-based individuals with self-reported chronic low back pain during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS A national online convenience sample of individuals with self-reported non-malignant low back pain > 6 months duration and with average pain intensity > 4/10 was enrolled and randomized 1:1 to one of two 56-day VR programs: (1) EaseVRx (pain relief skills immersive VR program); or (2) Sham VR (2D nature content delivered in a VR headset). Objective device use data and self-reported data were collected. The primary outcomes were change in average pain intensity and pain-related interference with activity, stress, mood, and sleep (baseline to end-of-treatment at day 56). Secondary outcomes were global impression of change and change in physical function, sleep disturbance, pain self-efficacy, pain catastrophizing, pain acceptance, pain medication use, and user satisfaction. Analytic methods included intention-to-treat and a mixed-model framework. RESULTS The study sample was 179 adults (female: 77%; Caucasian: 91%; at least some college education: 92%; mean age: 51.5 years, SD=13.1; average pain intensity: 5/10, SD=1.2; back pain duration >5 years: 67%). No group differences were found for any baseline variable or treatment engagement. User satisfaction ratings were higher for EaseVRx vs. Sham VR (p<0.0001). Both groups improved significantly for all five primary outcomes; EaseVRx was superior to Sham VR for all primary outcomes except pain-related sleep interference. For EaseVRx, large pre-post effect sizes ranged from 1.06-1.3 and met moderate to substantial clinical importance for reduced pain intensity and pain-related interference with activity, mood, and stress. A greater proportion of participants in the EaseVRx group achieved > 30% reduction in pain intensity (EaseVRx: 65.5%; Sham VR: 40.5%), and 46% of EaseVRx achieved >50% reduction in pain. Physical function and sleep disturbance significantly improved for both treatment groups with superior improvements found for EaseVRx (p=0.0019 and p=.0353, respectively). Pain catastrophizing, pain self-efficacy, prescription opioid use (morphine milligram equivalent; MME) did not reach statistical significance for either group. Use of over-the-counter analgesic use was reduced for EaseVRx (p<0.01) but not for Sham VR. CONCLUSIONS EaseVRx had high user satisfaction and superior and clinically meaningful symptom reduction for average pain intensity and pain-related interference with activity, mood, and stress compared to sham VR. Additional research is needed to determine durability of treatment effects and to characterize mechanisms of treatment effects. Home-based VR may expand access to effective and on-demand non-pharmacologic treatment for chronic low back pain. CLINICALTRIAL ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04415177 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04415177 INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT RR2-25291

scholarly journals Associations of pain severity and mobility with age in chronic low back pain: does the type of assessment matter?

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 893-893
Author(s):  
Taylor Buchanan ◽  
Deanna Rumble ◽  
Kristen Allen-Watts ◽  
Katie O'Neal ◽  
Tammie Quinn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Pain Intensity ◽  
Chronic Low Back Pain ◽  
Pain Severity ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Clinical Pain ◽  
Pain Symptoms

Abstract Chronic low back pain (cLBP) can lead to severe pain symptoms as well as disability in adults. As individuals age, pain symptoms and mobility outcomes can become increasingly debilitating. However, current findings regarding the influence of age on symptoms and outcomes are mixed and may be attributed to the assessment methodologies for pain and mobility. Therefore, we sought to examine the association of age with broad and specific assessments of pain severity and mobility commonly implemented in adults with cLBP. cLBP participants (n = 158) completed questionnaires regarding pain intensity and disability including demographics, Clinical Pain Assessment (CPA) and the Oswestry Low Back Pain questionnaire (OLBP). Participants also completed assessments of movement-evoked pain and difficulty by performing the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB). Pearson’s chi-square tests and regression-based analyses were conducted using SPSS version 26.0. Among cLBP participants, age was associated with pain-related disability indexed by section one of the OLBPS regarding pain intensity (F= 5.0, p&lt;.05), and mobility via total SPPB score (F= 11.7, p&lt;.05). Interestingly, age predicted greater self-reported difficulty climbing stairs (F= 21.7, p&lt;.05), performing chores (F= 17.0, p&lt;.05), walking (F= 14.0, p&lt;.05), and running errands (F= 13.4, p&lt;.05) from the CPA. Further, age predicted total balance (F= 3.2, p&lt;.05), gait speed (F= 7.8, p&lt;.05), and chair stand (F= 6.5, p&lt;.05) scores of SPPB. Age is associated with questionnaires assessing cLBP pain severity and is also associated with mobility outcomes. Future research should seek to understand the influence of age on movement-evoked pain in cLBP.

scholarly journals An 8-Week Self-Administered At-Home Behavioral Skills-Based Virtual Reality Program for Chronic Low Back Pain: Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial Conducted During COVID-19

10.2196/26292 ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. e26292
Author(s):  
Laura M Garcia ◽  
Brandon J Birckhead ◽  
Parthasarathy Krishnamurthy ◽  
Josh Sackman ◽  
Ian G Mackey ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Pain Intensity ◽  
Chronic Low Back Pain ◽  
User Satisfaction ◽  
Pain Catastrophizing ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Average Pain Intensity ◽  
Average Pain

Background Chronic low back pain is the most prevalent chronic pain condition worldwide and access to behavioral pain treatment is limited. Virtual reality (VR) is an immersive technology that may provide effective behavioral therapeutics for chronic pain. Objective We aimed to conduct a double-blind, parallel-arm, single-cohort, remote, randomized placebo-controlled trial for a self-administered behavioral skills-based VR program in community-based individuals with self-reported chronic low back pain during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods A national online convenience sample of individuals with self-reported nonmalignant low back pain with duration of 6 months or more and with average pain intensity of 4 or more/10 was enrolled and randomized 1:1 to 1 of 2 daily (56-day) VR programs: (1) EaseVRx (immersive pain relief skills VR program); or (2) Sham VR (2D nature content delivered in a VR headset). Objective device use data and self-reported data were collected. The primary outcomes were the between-group effect of EaseVRx versus Sham VR across time points, and the between–within interaction effect representing the change in average pain intensity and pain-related interference with activity, stress, mood, and sleep over time (baseline to end-of-treatment at day 56). Secondary outcomes were global impression of change and change in physical function, sleep disturbance, pain self-efficacy, pain catastrophizing, pain acceptance, pain medication use, and user satisfaction. Analytic methods included intention-to-treat and a mixed-model framework. Results The study sample was 179 adults (female: 76.5%, 137/179; Caucasian: 90.5%, 162/179; at least some college education: 91.1%, 163/179; mean age: 51.5 years [SD 13.1]; average pain intensity: 5/10 [SD 1.2]; back pain duration ≥5 years: 67%, 120/179). No group differences were found for any baseline variable or treatment engagement. User satisfaction ratings were higher for EaseVRx versus Sham VR (P<.001). For the between-groups factor, EaseVRx was superior to Sham VR for all primary outcomes (highest P value=.009), and between-groups Cohen d effect sizes ranged from 0.40 to 0.49, indicating superiority was moderately clinically meaningful. For EaseVRx, large pre–post effect sizes ranged from 1.17 to 1.3 and met moderate to substantial clinical importance for reduced pain intensity and pain-related interference with activity, mood, and stress. Between-group comparisons for Physical Function and Sleep Disturbance showed superiority for the EaseVRx group versus the Sham VR group (P=.022 and .013, respectively). Pain catastrophizing, pain self-efficacy, pain acceptance, prescription opioid use (morphine milligram equivalent) did not reach statistical significance for either group. Use of over-the-counter analgesic use was reduced for EaseVRx (P<.01) but not for Sham VR. Conclusions EaseVRx had high user satisfaction and superior and clinically meaningful symptom reduction for average pain intensity and pain-related interference with activity, mood, and stress compared to sham VR. Additional research is needed to determine durability of treatment effects and to characterize mechanisms of treatment effects. Home-based VR may expand access to effective and on-demand nonpharmacologic treatment for chronic low back pain. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04415177; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04415177 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) RR2-10.2196/25291

Differences between chronic low back pain patients in Germany and Thailand in terms of nature of disease and socioeconomic and psychological factors

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Pattarapol Yotnuengnit ◽  
Pongrin Boonyapaisancharoen ◽  
Nastasja Jamin ◽  
Heike Schulte-Goecking ◽  
Shahnaz-Christina Azad ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Pain Intensity ◽  
Chronic Low Back Pain ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
Outpatient Rehabilitation ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Impact

BACKGROUND: Worldwide, chronic low back pain (CLBP) is one of the most common causes of physical and psychological disabilities. The factors that affect low back pain (LBP) between Western and Eastern countries are different. OBJECTIVE: We assessed the factors associated with LBP and their impact in German and Thai CLBP participants. METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted in 100 Thai and 100 German CLBP participants. Data were collected before the participants received treatment in the outpatient rehabilitation clinic. We used standardized questionnaires to assess the demographic and socioeconomic data, clinical features of the pain, the impact of pain during daily activities, and psychological consequences. RESULTS: We found a statistically significant difference between the two groups for minimal pain intensity (NRS German = 3.01, Thai = 1.83), and the participants’ acceptable pain intensity (NRS German = 1.97, Thai = 3.88). The German participants had a higher negative impact score in their daily living compared to the Thai participants (German = 23.5, Thai = 10). Also, the German participants suffered more often from depression (CES-D score; German = 17, Thai = 4). However, the average back pain intensity was the same for both groups. CONCLUSION: German CLBP participants had significantly more depressive symptoms and pain-related impairments compared to the Thai participants. On the other hand, there were no differences in maximum and average pain severities.

scholarly journals Prevalence and Associated Factors of Depressive Symptoms Among Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain: A Cross-Sectional Study

2022 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yueming Hu ◽  
Zechuan Yang ◽  
Yong Li ◽  
Yong Xu ◽  
Mengge Tian ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Depressive Symptoms ◽  
Chronic Low Back Pain ◽  
Associated Factors ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Family Function

Background: Few studies have focused on depressive symptoms among patients with chronic low back pain in China. The aim of this cross-sectional study was to assess the prevalence and associated factors of depressive symptoms in patients with chronic low back pain.Methods: From May to August 2021, 1,172 patients with chronic low back pain were recruited in China. Depressive symptoms were assessed through the Patient Health Questionnaire. Associations of demographic characteristics, clinical characters and social-psychological factors with depressive symptoms were investigated among patients with chronic low back pain.Results: The prevalence of depressive symptoms was 25.00%. Logistic regression analysis found that duration of pain in 1-5 years (1-3 years: OR = 2.91, 95%CI: 1.65-5.14, 3-5 years: OR = 3.09, 95%CI: 1.55-6.15) and more severe pain (OR = 1.13, 95%CI: 1.10-1.17) were associated with higher risks of depressive symptoms. Better family function (good family function: OR = 0.25, 95%CI: 0.15-0.41, moderate family dysfunction: OR = 0.47, 95%CI: 0.29-0.77) and higher pain self-efficacy (OR = 0.94, 95%CI: 0.93-0.95) were associated with lower risks of depressive symptoms.Conclusion: Patients with chronic low back pain have a high prevalence of depressive symptoms in China. Duration of pain, pain severity, family function and pain self-efficacy were predictors of depressive symptoms among chronic low back pain patients in China. Early identification of the associated factors may be helpful for the timely management of depressive symptoms.

scholarly journals Pharmacological and toxicological profile of opioid-treated, chronic low back pain patients entering a mindfulness intervention randomized controlled trial

2014 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. 323 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aleksandra Zgierska, MD, PhD ◽  
Margaret L. Wallace, PharmD, BCACP ◽  
Cindy A. Burzinski, MS ◽  
Jennifer Cox, BS ◽  
Miroslav Backonja, MD
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Chronic Low Back Pain ◽  
Drug Testing ◽  
Illicit Drugs ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Toxicological Profile

Objective: Refractory chronic low back pain (CLBP) often leads to treatment with long-term opioids. Our goal was to describe the pharmaco-toxicological profile of opioid-treated CLBP patients and identify potential areas for care optimization.Design: Cross-sectional analysis.Setting: Outpatient primary care.Participants: CLBP patients prescribed ≥ 30 mg/d of morphine-equivalent dose (MED) for ≥3 months.Outcome Measures: Self-reported clinical, medication (verified) and substance use, and urine drug testing (UDT) data were collected.Results: Participants (N = 35) were 51.8 ± 9.7 years old, 80 percent female with CLBP for 14.2 ± 10.1 years, treated with opioids for 7.9 ± 5.7 years, with severe disability (Oswestry Disability Index score: 66.7 ± 11.4), and average pain score of 5.6 ± 1.5 (0-10 rating scale). Participants reported using tobacco (N = 14), alcohol (N = 9) and illicit drugs or unprescribed medications (N = 10). On average, participants took 13.4 ± 6.8 daily medications, including 4.7 ± 1.8 pain-modulating and 4.7 ± 2.0 sedating medications. Among prescribed opioids, 57.1 percent were long-acting and 91.4 percent were short-acting, with a total of 144.5 ± 127.8 mg/d of MED. Sixteen participants were prescribed benzodiazepines and/or zolpidem/zaleplon. Fifteen participants had UDT positive for illicit drugs or unprescribed medications; in addition, eight tested positive for alcohol and 19 for cotinine. Compared to those with negative UDTs, those with positive UDTs (N = 15) received lower daily “total” and “extended release” opioid doses, and were more likely to test positive for cotinine (p < 0.05).Conclusions: Study findings corroborate existing evidence for high medication burden and high likelihood of substance misuse among opioid-treated CLBP patients. Further research is needed to help understand causality and ways to optimize care and clinical outcomes.

scholarly journals The Theoretical Framework of the Clinical Pilates Exercise Method in Managing Non-Specific Chronic Low Back Pain: A Narrative Review

Biology ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (11) ◽  
pp. 1096
Author(s):  
Boon Chong Kwok ◽  
Justin Xuan Li Lim ◽  
Pui Wah Kong
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Chronic Low Back Pain ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Exercise Interventions ◽  
Directional Preference

Exercise plays an important role in rehabilitating people with chronic low back pain. Aerobic exercise and resistance training are general exercise strategies to manage chronic low back pain, but these strategies require longer intervention period to achieve clinical outcomes in pain reduction and functional improvements. Directional preference is recognised as an important exercise strategy in managing low back pain. The Clinical Pilates exercise method leverages on the directional preference of an individual to achieve clinical outcomes faster. Clinical Pilates is a hybrid of two of the best exercise interventions for low back pain, which are general Pilates and the McKenzie method. Due to the scarcity of Clinical Pilates literature, a review of its theory and studies was undertaken to provide a structured guide to the technique in managing people with chronic low back pain. Hypothetical algorithms are developed to support translation into clinical practice and future research studies. These algorithms are useful in the management of complex cases involving multiple directional trauma. Although limited, current evidence suggests that the Clinical Pilates exercise method is safe and provides faster functional recovery in the early stage of rehabilitation and similar longer term outcomes as general exercises.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document