39
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares

      Journal of Pain Research (submit here)

      This international, peer-reviewed Open Access journal by Dove Medical Press focuses on reporting of high-quality laboratory and clinical findings in all fields of pain research and the prevention and management of pain. Sign up for email alerts here.

      52,235 Monthly downloads/views I 2.832 Impact Factor I 4.5 CiteScore I 1.2 Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) I 0.655 Scimago Journal & Country Rank (SJR)

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Predicting factors of outcome in multidisciplinary treatment of chronic neuropathic pain

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Purpose

          Evidence of the effectiveness of multidisciplinary treatment with a focus on neuropathic pain is still rare. The present study investigated whether multidisciplinary treatment leads to improvement of neuropathic pain in outcome (pain intensity and disability) and psychological (depression, pain acceptance, and catastrophizing) variables at posttreatment and 3-month follow-up. We examined whether and to what extent psychological changes can predict long-term outcome at 3-month follow-up, when other variables are controlled for (baseline characteristics and changes in pain parameters).

          Patients and methods

          Patients suffering from a chronic neuropathic pain condition (n=141) attended an inpatient multidisciplinary program lasting about 15 continuous days with self-report data collected at pretreatment, posttreatment, and 3-month follow-up.

          Results

          Repeated-measures ANOVAs showed a significant improvement of pain intensity, disability, pain acceptance, catastrophizing, and depression at posttreatment. These improvements remained stable over the 3-month follow-up for all variables except for depression. The inclusion of psychological changes in multiple regression analyses greatly increased the variance in outcome, explained by baseline characteristics and changes in pain parameters.

          Conclusion

          The results could help clinicians to determine which variables should be emphasized during inpatient treatment and during the follow-up period, in order to maintain the gains after an inpatient multidisciplinary treatment for neuropathic pain.

          Perspective

          The present study demonstrates the beneficial effects of an inpatient multidisciplinary program for neuropathic pain and further question the resistant nature of neuropathic pain to treatment. The results add evidence to the relevance of cognitive-behavioral models of pain positing an important role for pain-related thoughts and emotions in long-term outcome following multidisciplinary pain treatment.

          Most cited references41

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Theoretical perspectives on the relation between catastrophizing and pain.

          The tendency to "catastrophize" during painful stimulation contributes to more intense pain experience and increased emotional distress. Catastrophizing has been broadly conceived as an exaggerated negative "mental set" brought to bear during painful experiences. Although findings have been consistent in showing a relation between catastrophizing and pain, research in this area has proceeded in the relative absence of a guiding theoretical framework. This article reviews the literature on the relation between catastrophizing and pain and examines the relative strengths and limitations of different theoretical models that could be advanced to account for the pattern of available findings. The article evaluates the explanatory power of a schema activation model, an appraisal model, an attention model, and a communal coping model of pain perception. It is suggested that catastrophizing might best be viewed from the perspective of hierarchical levels of analysis, where social factors and social goals may play a role in the development and maintenance of catastrophizing, whereas appraisal-related processes may point to the mechanisms that link catastrophizing to pain experience. Directions for future research are suggested.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Neuropathic pain: diagnosis, pathophysiological mechanisms, and treatment.

            Neuropathic pain develops as a result of lesions or disease affecting the somatosensory nervous system either in the periphery or centrally. Examples of neuropathic pain include painful polyneuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia, trigeminal neuralgia, and post-stroke pain. Clinically, neuropathic pain is characterised by spontaneous ongoing or shooting pain and evoked amplified pain responses after noxious or non-noxious stimuli. Methods such as questionnaires for screening and assessment focus on the presence and quality of neuropathic pain. Basic research is enabling the identification of different pathophysiological mechanisms, and clinical assessment of symptoms and signs can help to determine which mechanisms are involved in specific neuropathic pain disorders. Management of neuropathic pain requires an interdisciplinary approach, centred around pharmacological treatment. A better understanding of neuropathic pain and, in particular, of the translation of pathophysiological mechanisms into sensory signs will lead to a more effective and specific mechanism-based treatment approach. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Interpreting the clinical importance of group differences in chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations.

              An essential component of the interpretation of results of randomized clinical trials of treatments for chronic pain involves the determination of their clinical importance or meaningfulness. This involves two distinct processes--interpreting the clinical importance of individual patient improvements and the clinical importance of group differences--which are frequently misunderstood. In this article, we first describe the essential differences between the interpretation of the clinical importance of patient improvements and of group differences. We then discuss the factors to consider when evaluating the clinical importance of group differences, which include the results of responder analyses of the primary outcome measure, the treatment effect size compared to available therapies, analyses of secondary efficacy endpoints, the safety and tolerability of treatment, the rapidity of onset and durability of the treatment benefit, convenience, cost, limitations of existing treatments, and other factors. The clinical importance of individual patient improvements can be determined by assessing what patients themselves consider meaningful improvement using well-described methods. In contrast, the clinical meaningfulness of group differences must be determined by a multi-factorial evaluation of the benefits and risks of the treatment and of other available treatments for the condition in light of the primary goals of therapy. Such determinations must be conducted on a case-by-case basis, and are ideally informed by patients and their significant others, clinicians, researchers, statisticians, and representatives of society at large.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Pain Res
                J Pain Res
                Journal of Pain Research
                Journal of Pain Research
                Dove Medical Press
                1178-7090
                2018
                18 October 2018
                : 11
                : 2433-2443
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Psychiatric Nursing, Community Based Psychiatric Care Research Centre, Faculty of Nursing and Midwifery, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran, m2620.shaygan@ 123456gmail.com
                [2 ]Pain Management Clinic at the Red Cross Hospital, Kassel, Germany
                [3 ]Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Georg-Elias-Müller-Institute of Psychology, Georg-August-University, Göttingen, Germany
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Maryam Shaygan, Faculty of Nursing and Midwifery, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, P.O. Box 713451359, Shiraz, Iran, Email m2620.shaygan@ 123456gmail.com
                Article
                jpr-11-2433
                10.2147/JPR.S175817
                6204857
                30425557
                4ab46a2d-a6a3-4f0a-b91e-ed7835f35fcb
                © 2018 Shaygan et al. This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited

                The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.

                History
                Categories
                Original Research

                Anesthesiology & Pain management
                multidisciplinary treatment,neuropathic pain,psychological variables

                Comments

                Comment on this article