Predictive validity of the Chronic Pain Coping Inventory in subacute low back pain

被引:56
作者
Truchon, M
Côté, D
机构
[1] Ctr Interdisciplinary Res Rehabil & Social Integr, Hamel, PQ G1M 2S8, Canada
[2] Univ Laval, Dept Relat Ind, Quebec City, PQ G1K 7P4, Canada
关键词
D O I
10.1016/j.pain.2005.04.003
中图分类号
R614 [麻醉学];
学科分类号
100217 ;
摘要
The Chronic Pain Coping Inventory (CPCI) was developed to assess eight behavioral coping strategies hypothesized to be important for pain adaptation. But the predictive validity of the CPCI has yet to be tested in a longitudinal study. Here, 321 workers on sick leave after a work accident affecting the low back pain (LBP) region completed the CPCI during the subacute stage (T1) of LBP as well as the Catastrophizing scale of the Coping Strategies Questionnaire (CSQ). Disability, pain intensity and depressive mood were assessed simultaneously as well as 6 months later (T2). Work status was also determined at follow-up. Hierarchical regression analyses revealed that the CPCI (Guarding scale) predicted T1 disability and T2 disability (Relaxation scale), but T1 disability was the best predictor of T2 disability. For T1 pain intensity, the CSQ's Catastrophizing dimension was the best predictor and the CPCI Guarding scale added a small contribution. T1 pain intensity was the best predictor of T2 pain intensity. Catastrophizing and Guarding were the most strongly associated with depressive mood at T1 but at T2, only depressive mood at T1 predicted this same variable. Results indicated also that the Guarding and Catastrophizing scales were able to predict future work status. The present study clearly reveals the usefulness of Guarding from the CPCI and Catastrophizing from the CSQ, when predicting different outcomes of adjustment to low back pain. (c) 2005 International Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:205 / 212
页数:8
相关论文
共 20 条
  • [1] PSYCHOSOCIAL PREDICTORS OF OUTCOME IN ACUTE AND SUBCHRONIC LOW-BACK TROUBLE
    BURTON, AK
    TILLOTSON, KM
    MAIN, CJ
    HOLLIS, S
    [J]. SPINE, 1995, 20 (06) : 722 - 728
  • [2] Disability - How successful are we in determining disability?
    Carey, TS
    [J]. NEUROLOGIC CLINICS, 1999, 17 (01) : 167 - +
  • [3] COSTE J, 1993, REV RHUM, V60, P335
  • [4] Use of structure coefficients in published multiple regression articles:: β is not enough
    Courville, T
    Thompson, B
    [J]. EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT, 2001, 61 (02) : 229 - 248
  • [5] Behaviour-focused pain coping:: Consistency and convergence to work capability of the Swedish version of The Chronic Pain Coping Inventory
    Ektor-Andersen, J
    Orbæk, P
    Isacsson, SO
    [J]. JOURNAL OF REHABILITATION MEDICINE, 2002, 34 (01) : 33 - 39
  • [6] Transition to chronic pain in men with low back pain: Predictive relationships among pain intensity, disability, and depressive symptoms
    Epping-Jordan, JE
    Williams, RA
    Pruitt, SD
    Patterson, TL
    Grant, I
    Wahlgren, DR
    Slater, MA
    Webster, JS
    Atkinson, JH
    [J]. HEALTH PSYCHOLOGY, 1998, 17 (05) : 421 - 427
  • [7] Validation of the Chronic Pain Coping Inventory
    Hadjistavropoulos, HD
    MacLeod, FK
    Asmundson, GJG
    [J]. PAIN, 1999, 80 (03) : 471 - 481
  • [8] Hosmer W., 2000, Applied Logistic Regression, VSecond
  • [9] THE MEASUREMENT OF CLINICAL PAIN INTENSITY - A COMPARISON OF 6 METHODS
    JENSEN, MP
    KAROLY, P
    BRAVER, S
    [J]. PAIN, 1986, 27 (01) : 117 - 126
  • [10] One- and two-item measures of pain beliefs and coping strategies
    Jensen, MP
    Keefe, FJ
    Lefebvre, JC
    Romano, JM
    Turner, JA
    [J]. PAIN, 2003, 104 (03) : 453 - 469