African American Young Adults’ Pain and Pain Reduction Strategies

BackgroundEffective acute pain management strategies are important for young adults in order to reduce risk for transition to chronic pain.AimTo describe pain and pain self-management strategies used by African American young adults.Design & SettingA national online cross-sectional survey design was used.Participant/SubjectsNinety-four African Americans Qualtrics panelists ages 18-25 who reported previous experience with acute pain responded. Methods: Respondents completed the Brief Pain Inventory Short Form to describe their pain intensity, pain interference with function, pain self-management, and percent of relief obtained from their self-management.ResultsAfrican American young adults reported pain primarily in the back (n = 22, 23.4%) and head (n = 19, 20.2%), with moderate pain intensity M = 4.5 (standard deviation [SD] = 1.79) and pain interference with function M = 4.6 (SD = 2.36). African American young adults described their worst pain in the last 24 hours as M = 5.7 (SD = 2.01), least pain as M = 3.4 (SD = 2.41), and average pain as M = 5.1 (SD = 2.09). They reported 61.3% pain relief from self-treatment. A total of 45 (47.9%) reported no pain self-management strategies.ConclusionsAfrican American young adults report moderate levels of pain intensity and pain interference with function. A significant number report no pain self-management strategies. Focused pain assessment and education about efficacious pain self-management strategies, both pharmacological and complementary, could assist young African Americans to reduce their pain and risk of chronic pain in the future.     

The Effects of Self–Pain Management on the Intensity of Pain and Pain Management Methods in Arthritic Patients

The aims of this study were to investigate the effects of pain management education on the intensity of pain and frequency of utilization of pain management methods in two groups of patients with arthritis of different pathogenesis and clinical features, and to compare whether a significant difference existed between the two groups. The study was carried out between September 2007 and June 2008 on 30 female patients with gonarthrosis and 30 female patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) followed at the rheumatology outpatient clinic of a university hospital. Data on sociodemographic characteristics and those related with the illness were collected using a special survey. Each patient was given information about the features, causes, and treatment of the arthritis and how to cope with pain, emphasizing the importance of pain management methods. The intensity of pain and efficacy of pain management methods were assessed using the McGill Pain Questionnaire and the Pain Management Inventory at baseline and the second and sixth weeks after the education. The SPSS (v15.0) statistical package was used for statistical analysis. After education, significant improvements in pain intensity scores compared with baseline scores were observed in both groups (p < .05), and there was no significant difference between the RA and gonarthrosis groups. Among the various pain management methods, the education program led to significantly more utilization of massaging the painful area, exercising, and using complementary methods to control stress in both groups of patients, and there was no significant difference between the groups. In conclusion, the pain management education given in this study alleviated the intensity of pain and significantly increased the use of some pain management methods in both gonarthrosis and RA cases.     

Pain Measurement and Brain Activity: Will Neuroimages Replace Pain Ratings?

Arguments made for the advantages of replacing pain ratings with brain-imaging data include assumptions that pain ratings are less reliable and objective and that brain image data would greatly benefit the measurement of treatment efficacy. None of these assumptions are supported by available evidence. Self-report of pain is predictable and does not necessarily reflect unreliability or error. Because pain is defined as an experience, magnitudes of its dimensions can be estimated by well-established methods, including those used to validate brain imaging of pain. Brain imaging helps to study pain mechanisms and might be used as proxy measures of pain in persons unable to provide verbal reports. Yet eliminating pain ratings or replacing them with neuroimaging data is misguided because brain images only help explain pain if they are used in conjunction with self-report. There is no objective readout mechanism of pain (pain thermometer) that is unaffected by psychological factors. Benefits from including neuroimaging data might include increased understanding of underlying neural mechanisms of treatment efficacy, discovery of new treatment vectors, and support of conclusions derived from self-report. However, neither brain imaging nor self-report data are privileged over the other. The assumption that treatment efficacy is hampered by self-report has not been shown; there is a plethora of treatment studies showing that self-report is sensitive to treatment. Dismissal of patients’ self-reports (pain ratings) by brain-imaging data is potentially harmful. The aim of replacing self-report with brain-imaging data is misguided and has no scientific or philosophical foundation.PerspectiveAlthough brain imaging may offer considerable insight into the neural mechanisms of pain, including relevant causes and correlations, brain images cannot and should not replace self-report. Only the latter assesses the experience of pain, which is not identical to neural activity. Brain imaging may help to explain pain, but replacing self-report with brain-imaging data would be philosophically and scientifically misguided and potentially harmful to pain patients.     

Family Members’ Experiences with Observing Pain Behaviors Using the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool

BackgroundCurrent guidelines support family members' participation in care, but little is known regarding their potential contribution to pain assessment using validated behavioral pain scales.AimsThis study aimed to describe family members’ observations of pain behaviors with the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool and their evaluation of the tool and its use, and to understand their experience and perceptions of their potential role in pain management in the intensive care unit.DesignA mixed methods cross-sectional explanatory design was used.SettingA medical-surgical intensive care unit in Canada.Participants/SubjectsFamily members were eligible if they had a loved one admitted in the intensive care unit who was unable to self-report.MethodsFamily members identified pain behaviors using the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool after a brief training, completed a self-administered questionnaire, and participated in a follow-up individual interview regarding their experience and perceived potential role in pain management when their loved one is unable to self-report.ResultsTen family members participated. A 15-minute training appeared sufficient for family members to be comfortable with observing pain behaviors included in the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool. The tool allowed them to confirm their observations of pain behaviors, to focus more on the patient, and to advocate for better pain management.ConclusionsFuture research is needed to explore the views of more family members and to compare their Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool scores to the ones of nurses' for interrater reliability testing.     

Does Pain Catastrophizing Moderate the Relationship Between Spinal Nociceptive Processes and Pain Sensitivity?

Existing evidence indicates that pain catastrophizing is associated with enhanced pain reports and lower pain threshold/tolerance levels, but is not significantly related to nociceptive flexion reflex (NFR) threshold in healthy and clinical pain samples. This suggests pain catastrophizing may modulate pain threshold at a supraspinal level without influencing descending modulation of spinal nociceptive inputs. To examine this issue further, the present study assessed NFR threshold, electrocutaneous pain threshold, and electrocutaneous pain tolerance, as well as subjective ratings of noxious stimuli in a sample of 105 healthy adults. Pain catastrophizing was assessed prior to testing using traditional instructions and after pain testing with instructions to report on cognitions during testing (situation-specific catastrophizing). As expected, NFR threshold was correlated with pain sensitivity measures, but uncorrelated with both measures of catastrophizing. Although situation-specific catastrophizing was correlated with some pain outcomes, neither catastrophizing measure (traditional or situation specific) moderated the relationship between NFR and pain sensitivity. These findings confirm and extend existing evidence that catastrophizing influences pain reports through supraspinal mechanisms (eg, memory, report bias, attention) without altering transmission of spinal nociceptive signals.PerspectiveAssessing catastrophic thoughts related to a specific painful event (situation-specific catastrophizing) provides important additional information regarding the negative cognitions that influence pain-related processes. However, neither situation-specific nor traditionally measured pain catastrophizing appear to enhance pain by engaging descending controls to influence spinal nociceptive processes.     

Nurses’ Opinions of Pain and the Assessed Need for Pain Medication for the Elderly

The undertreatment of pain in the elderly living in nursing homes is a significant problem. In Swedish nursing homes, the registered nurse on duty is often responsible for 20-40 patients during the day with no daily contact from attending physicians. The aim of this study was to investigate the opinions of registered nurses regarding pain and the assessed need for pain medication for elderly patients using patient scenarios. Two patient scenarios were used in this study; a questionnaire and background information was provided. The scenarios consisted of one smiling patient and one grimacing patient, both with the same numeric rating scale value of pain, blood pressure, pulse rate, and respiration rate. Three questions regarding pain assessment and management followed the scenarios. The questionnaire was sent to all 128 registered nurses working daytime in elderly care in both municipal nursing homes and municipal home care in the mid-Sweden region. A total of 56 nurses participated, providing an answering frequency of 45%. Results showed that registered nurses with more experience did not have the same opinion about pain as the smiling patient and gave inadequate medication, which was not in accordance with recommendations from the county hospital and the World Health Organization.     

Do Past Pain Events Systematically Impact Pain Ratings of Healthy Subjects or Fibromyalgia Patients?

We previously reported that 3 different electronic visual analogue and numerical pain scales are useful in providing refined capacity to discriminate discrete levels of pain intensity. Using the same subjects and scales, we now investigated whether pain scaling is influenced by past pain events and by recalled memories of these events in the rating of pain. Normal control subjects (NC: 19 male, 30 female) and female fibromyalgia (FM) (n = 17) patients received 5-second suprathreshold heat stimuli (45–49°C) to both forearms. The participants rated these experimental heat stimuli using the previously described electronic pain scales. Subsequently, they were asked to report whether they used any prior pain experiences during the process of rating their pain. Out of 49 NC, only 6 females (12.2%) and 7 males (14.3%), and out of 17 FM patients, only 3 females (17.6%) stated that they had used past pain experiences during scaling. Notably, pain ratings of experimental heat stimuli did not statistically differ between subjects who used past pain experiences during scaling as compared to those who did not. Furthermore, ratings of their most severe past pains were not significantly correlated with ratings of experimental pain stimuli. These results do not provide support for the strong assertion that pain rating scales are elastic, ie, being used differently depending on the severity of past pain events such as childbirth.PerspectiveLess than 25% of subjects used memories of past pain events during pain scaling. In addition, if they were used, these pain memories did not influence pain scaling with electronic eVAS and eNUM scales. Thus, use of these scales allows reliable comparisons of experimental and clinical pain ratings within and between subjects.     

Is Chronic Pain a Disease?

It was not until the twentieth century that pain was considered a disease. Before that it was managed medically as a symptom. The motivations for declaring chronic pain a disease, whether of the body or of the brain, include increasing its legitimacy as clinical problem and research focus worthy of attention from healthcare and research organizations alike. But 1 problem with disease concepts is that having a disease favors medical solutions and tends to reduce patient participation. We argue that chronic pain, particularly chronic primary pain (recently designated a first tier pain diagnosis in International Diagnostic Codes 11), is a learned state that is not intransigent even if it has biological correlates. Chronic pain is sometimes a symptom, and may sometimes be its own disease. But here we question the value of a disease focus for much of chronic pain for which patient involvement is essential, and which may need a much broader societal approach than is suggested by the disease designation.PerspectiveThis article examines whether designating chronic pain a disease of the body or brain is helpful or harmful to patients. Can the disease designation help advance treatment, and is it needed to achieve future therapeutic breakthrough? Or does it make patients over-reliant on medical intervention and reduce their engagement in the process of recovery?     

Analgesic,Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations,Innovations, Opportunities,and Networks−American Pain Society−American Academy of Pain Medicine Pain Taxonomy Diagnostic Criteria for Acute Needle Pain

Needle procedures are among the most common causes of pain and distress for individuals seeking health care. While needle pain is especially problematic for children needle pain and associated fear also has significant impact on adults and can lead to avoidance of appropriate medical care. Currently there is not a standard definition of needle pain. A taxonomy, or classification system, for acute needle pain would aid research efforts and enhance clinical care. To meet this need, the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks public?private partnership with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the American Pain Society, and the American Academy of Pain Medicine formed the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks?American Pain Society?American Academy of Pain Medicine Pain Taxonomy initiative. One of the goals of this initiative was to develop taxonomies for acute pain disorders, including needle pain. To accomplish this, a working group of experts in needle pain was convened. Based on available literature and expert opinion, the working group used a 5-dimenional structure (diagnostic criteria, common features, modulating factors, impact and/or functional consequences, and putative mechanisms) to develop an acute pain taxonomy that is specific needle pain. As part of this, a set of 4 diagnostic criteria, with 2 modifiers to account for the influence of needle associated fear, are proposed to define the types of acute needle pain.PerspectiveThis article presents a taxonomy for acute needle pain. This taxonomy could help to standardize definitions of acute pain in clinical studies of patients undergoing needle procedures.     

Sex Differences in Pain Intensity in Adolescents Suffering From Cancer: Differences in Pain Memories?

Although sex differences have been investigated in chronic pain populations, little is known about sex differences in the pain experience of paediatric oncology patients and also whether their parents rate the pain experience differently for boys and girls. The aim of the present study was to determine if (1) boys and girls with cancer differ in current perception and past recollection of cancer-related pain and (2) if adolescents' and parents' pain ratings differ in relation to the sex of the adolescent. One hundred twelve adolescents with malignant diagnoses (12 to 18 years) and their parents participated in the study. Girls reported higher pain intensity within the last 7 days and 4 weeks despite similar diagnosis, physical status, duration of diagnoses, and main pain causes. When asked for pain intensity that dated back in time, parent and adolescent ratings diverged, with a trend for parents to reporting higher pain intensity in boys and lower pain intensity in girls, particularly for pain in the preceding 7 days. The present study provides preliminary evidence for sex differences in the recalled pain experience of adolescents with malignant diagnoses. Although boys and girls experience present pain similarly and hence should be treated similarly, girls recall higher pain intensity than boys. Future studies should address whether negative memories in girls play a significant role and may have an impact on girls' well-being and pain-related distress. Additionally, psychosocial factors such as gender role expectations may need to be investigated. Parental variables and their impact on parents' pain ratings, especially for ratings of precedent pain, warrants further investigation.PerspectiveGirls with malignant diagnoses differ from boys in their recalled pain intensity ratings, with girls reporting higher pain intensity. Additional pain management strategies referring to the memory of pain may need to be implemented.     

Factors Associated With Adolescent Chronic Non-Specific Pain,Chronic Multisite Pain,and Chronic Pain With High Disability: The Young–HUNT Study 2008

The aim of this study was to assess the association of chronic pain with different lifestyle factors and psychological symptoms in a large, unselected adolescent population. Pain was evaluated as chronic non-specific pain, chronic multisite pain, and in additional analyses, chronic pain with high disability. The study was performed during 2006 to 2008 in Nord-Trøndelag County, Norway. Adolescents aged 13 to 18 years were invited to participate. The response rate was 78%. The final study population consisted of 7,373. Sedentary behavior and pain were associated only in girls. In both sexes, overweight and obesity were associated with increased odds of pain. Whereas both smoking and alcohol intoxication showed strong associations with pain, the associations were attenuated after adjustments for psychosocial factors. Symptoms of anxiety and depression showed the strongest associations with pain (odds ratio 4.1 in girls and 3.7 in boys). The odds of pain increased gradually by number of unfavorable lifestyle factors reported. This study revealed consistent associations between lifestyle factors, anxiety and depression, and chronic pain, including multisite pain and pain with high disability. The consistency across the different pain categories suggests common underlying explanatory mechanisms, and despite the cross-sectional design, the study indicates several modifiable targets in the management of adolescent chronic pain.PerspectiveThis study showed a clear and consistent relation between different lifestyle factors, anxiety and depression, and the pain categories chronic non-specific pain, multisite pain, and also pain with high disability. Independent of causality, it underlines the importance of a broad perspective when studying, preventing, and treating chronic pain in adolescents.     

Does Pain Cause the Perception of Fatigue in Patients with Chronic Pain? Findings from Studies for Management of Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathic Pain with Duloxetine

A major issue in pain literature is whether an etiological association between pain, sleep, and vitality exists. We utilized data from clinical trials of duloxetine for management of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP) to investigate these associations. Data were pooled from 3 double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, 12-week trials of patients without mood disorder ( N  =  1,139). After excluding 442 patients who reported maximum vitality at baseline, experienced treatment-emergent somnolence, asthenia or fatigue, or were taking sedating concomitant medications or duloxetine 20 mg/day, 697 were included in the analysis. Efficacy measures included weekly mean scores for average daily and night pain, pain interference with sleep, and vitality. Baseline to end point mean improvements in daily and night pain, Brief Pain Inventory sleep interference, and vitality were significantly superior for duloxetine compared with placebo ( P  ≤ 0.001). Correlations between changes in daily and night pain, and sleep interference with vitality changes were −0.34, −0.32, and −0.28, respectively ( P  < 0.001). The direct effect of treatment on change in vitality was statistically significant (68%, P  = 0.010) when assessed in an indirect manner through change in sleep interference alone but not in daily or night pain solely. Path analyses suggested vitality improvement in patients with chronic pain may be secondary to improvement in pain by duloxetine. Results do not prove pain causes fatigue, but indicate in DPNP patients with fatigue that treatment of pain can improve perception of improvement in fatigue. Thus, improvement of pain may be important in the context of trying to improve fatigue in DPNP patients.