Week 4-Pain Catastrophising, Depression and Suicide Flashcards
Define Catastrophising
The tendency to view the worst consequences of things and events (Pain Catastrophising is the same thing, but pain-specific)
What is the Pain Catastrophising Scale (PCS)? (Sullivan et al., 1995)
3 subscales:
Magnification: “I become afraid that the pain will get worse”
Rumination: “I can’t stop thinking about how much it hurts”
Helplessness: “There is nothing I can do to reduce the intensity of pain”
Define Concept Redundancy
Pain catastrophising often correlates with
depression, fear of pain, or anxiety. For this reason the concept itself has been challenged, e.g., is possibly redundant (Quartana et al., 2012)
True or False: Cold pressor pain is greater in high- than in low-catastrophising individuals (Sullivan et al., 1995)
True!
-Dunk your hand in ice water where you will quickly feel pain and you rate pain ratings during different time intervals
Split the groups based off the PCS i.e., high and low-catastrophising (all healthy)
True or False: Catastrophising explains 7%-31% of the covariance with pain outcomes (Sullivan et al., 2001)
True! (This looked at clinical populations and did the cold pressor task again: These points show countless research examples of how pain catastrophising can determine and relate to several clinical outcomes)
* Concurrent pain (Sullivan et al., 1995)
- Post-surgical pain (Pavlin et al., 2005)
- Analgesic intake (Jacobsen and Butler, 1996; but see also negative data in Khan et al., 2011)
- Length of hospitalisation (Gil et al., 1992)
- Activity intolerance (Sullivan et al., 2002)
- Return to work (Sullivan and Stanish, 2003)
- Effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation therapy (Rosenberg et al., 2014)
- Risk of developing chronic pain, e.g. after knee replacement (Burns et al., 2015)
What was found in the Meta-analysis of pain catastrophising scale (PCS) scores in different syndromes in 220 studies? (Wheeler et al., 2019)
- Stratified the relationship between PC and chronic pain syndromes
- Healthy people score a mean PCS score of 15 and some chronic pain conditions also fell in the normal conditions.
- Nociplastic pain (e.g., generalised pain/
fibromyalgia) is particularly associated
with high PCS scores. - Excellent test-retest reliability (0.8-0.9) for total PCS scores (less so for three factors)
- No significant effects of age and gender on relationship between pain and PCS.
- We can conclude therefore that PC is a key component of some chronic pain conditions
What was found in the Meta-analysis of correlations between pain catastrophising and pain severity and disability? (Calderon et al., 2019)
- Meta-analysis of 85 studies revealed
moderate correlations between PCS and pain severity in knee pain, low-back pain and widespread pain. - Positive correlation for all types of pain which means PC levels can predict the severity of pain that different chronic pain populations may have.
- There is still a difference between those who are high and low-catastrophising
- ‘Low quality’ in many studies may have
compromised results.
Decreased conditioned pain modulation in high pain catastrophisers: What was Weissman-Fogel et al’s (2008) study?
- High pain catastrophisers may have low endogenous mechanisms (i.e., pain modulation)
-Applied 1-min heat stimulus before and after a strenuous exercise (40 hand-grips)
CPM
- We should feel less pain from the heat stimulus after the hand-grips due to pain modulation (double check in recording)
Correlations:
-Pain catastrophising - heat pain
(conditioning stim): r = 0.48, P<0.05 pain catastrophising - muscle pain (test stim): r = 0.31, P<0.05
-Pain Catastrophising - CPM: r = -0.32,
P<0.05
- It was a negative correlation (high PC = less CPM). PC could be linked to mechanisms in which people experience less pain outcomes (check in recording)
What Evidence on Brain Structure is there?
Blankenstein et al., (2010):
-Brain structure: Pain catastrophizing correlates with grey matter density in dorsolateral prefrontal cortex.
-A negative correlation r=-0.67 between thickness of cortical grey matter in DLPFC and PCS in patients with Irritable bowel syndrome (n=11) (higher PCS = reduced thickness) HOWEVER we need better studies as these are relatively small studies + there isn’t perfect replication of these studies.
Hubbard, CS., et al., (2014):
-Analysed correlations between grey matter thickness and PCS in migraine patients (n=17) and healthy controls (n=18).
-Medial PFC showed a negative correlation with PFC in migraine patients and a positive correlation in healthy controls.
What Evidence on Brain Function is there? (Seminowicz & Davis, 2006)
-Brain activation patterns in high- and low pain catastrophisers of healthy P’s
-Brain activation patterns for both mild
and high pain are exaggerated in various
pain processing structures in individuals
with high PCS scores compared to low PCS scores in areas such as the DLPF, STG etc.,
What was found in the Meta-analysis of studies analysing correlations between brain activation during pain stimulation and pain catastrophising? (Galambos et al., 2019)
-Meta-analysis of 10 functional MR studies, mostly involving healthy people giving pain stimulation in the scanner.
-The results indicate a connection between pain catastrophizing and brain areas tightly connected to higher levels of pain perception (somatosensory cortices, anterior insula, anterior cingulate cortex and thalamus) and/or modulation (e.g., the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex).
-Pain catastrophizing might be related to salience detection, pain processing, and top-down attentional processes.
-PC is related to some sort of pain processing in the brain which can lead to worse pain outcomes.
What is the Genetic underpinning of pain
catastrophising? (Trost et al., 2015).
- Heritability of pain catastrophising was investigated via a twin study with 53 mono-zygotic, relative to 53 dizygotic (non-
identical but same sex-important as there are sex differences in pain) twins - Cold pressor test was utilized.
– Pain catastrophising and pain showed positive heritability indices, and heritability and pain catastrophising together explained 37% of variance in pain tolerance threshold.
-More consistencies in identical twins so there is some element of genetic heritability - Replication : A recent twin study (Burri et al., 2018) confirmed a 36% heritability of pain catastrophising.
- This supports a biological mechanism for PC with a genetic component
What are the 3 Main Theories of pain
catastrophising?
- Attentional model: catastrophising as an increased attentional bias to pain
- Communal coping model : catastrophising maximises the probability that distress will be managed within social/interpersonal context (i.e., a way of communicating pain and obtaining health)
- Fear avoidance model: NOT a model of how catastrophizing affects pain experience, but a model of the cycle of chronic pain
- FA model attributes a significant role (and negative consequence) to pain catastrophizing as a factor promoting the generation and maintenance of chronic
pain cycle. - See Sullivan et al. (2001) ON CANVAS, Quartana et al. (2009), Leung (2012) see slide notes for additional reading about these theories
-Empirically testable
What is the Attentional Model: Catastrophising-attention links in
patients?
- Pain patients are hypervigilant to pain, manifesting e.g., in scanning the body during anticipation of somatosensory stimuli.
- Fibromyalgia syndrome patients (soft tissue pain at multiple sites of the body) show higher pain intensity, vigilance to pain, and pain catastrophising than chronic back pain patients. (Crombez et al., 2004).
– Correlation study in 64 fibromyalgia and 46 chronic back patients using PCS, Pain Vigilance Questionnaire - catastrophising mediated the relationship between vigilance and pain (Crombez et al., 2004).
- This is great as Fibromyalgia is a hard condition to treat but we have 2 clear mechanisms i.e., vigilance and PC
What is the Hypervigilance to pain cues in the environment in chronic pain? (AM)
- FMS patients show exaggerated neural
responsiveness and increased pain rating for even non-pain scenes – showing enhanced vigilance (Fallon et al., 2015) - EEG study, patients compared to healthy
(matched controls) observing two categories of image (painful and non-painful images matched). - Patients demonstrated greater PCS scores.
- Augmented late positive potential (LPP)
component (associated with processing
complex/emotional content of images) was
seen in patients in response to both pain and non-pain pictures (hypervigilance) - Their level of PC and hypervigilance is changing their brain responsiveness (which is an objective measure)
Communal coping model of catastrophising: What is the Supporting Evidence? PART 1
- CCM model attributes catastrophising as a mechanism to communicate pain and enable social support.
- High-Catastrophisers display facial expressions of pain longer for than non-catastrophizers in the presence of observer but not when alone (Sullivan et al., 2004).
- Perhaps this is some sort of mechanism where PC is related to some communicative mechanism to obtain help.
Communal coping model of catastrophising: What is the Evidence for support? PART 2
- Measuring the correlation between PCS scores and intensity of facial pain expressions displayed during cold-pressor test (Sullivan et al., 2006).
- Forty subjects were exposed to CPT (1 min) and were videotaped. Trained observers analysed facial expressions during 15-20 s of the CPT. There was a positive correlation r = 0.40, p<0.01 (females) and r = 0.36, p<0.02 (males) between the amount of pain behavior exhibited (facial expressions) and pain catastrophising score (i.e., high PCS = high PB exhibited)
- Heightened perception of pain in others and catastrophising (Sullivan et al., 2006).
- Sixty participants (not trained) rated video clips of 11 subjects undergoing CPT. Higher levels of pain perceptions in others was related to pain perceptions in raters (Correlations between cat. score and inferred pain).
- PC can be related to levels of empathy which supports the Communal Model as it actually is related to social interactions to pain both for being helped and helping others.
What is the Prosocial (CCM) evidence: High pain catastrophisers attribute stronger
pain to others: role of insula, anterior cingulate (Fallon et al., 2015)
- In this study, high and low catastrophisers (healthy people) rated painful and non-painful scenes whilst brain activity recorded with EEG.
- High- PCS group rated scenes as more painful, and showed enhanced brain responses in Anterior cingulate cortex and the insula cortex
- This suggest enhanced empathic reactions in high catastrophisers - prosocial
- This supports the idea that PC is part of a mechanism promoting prosocial behaviour
Communal coping model of catastrophising: How does the spouse view the patient’s pain? (Burns et al., 2015)
- Burns et al., (2015) employed electronic
diaries to record PCS, pain and partners’
responses every 3 hours for 14 days:
– pain was stronger when the spouse was
present (Communal coping model i.e., opportunity to receive help)
– within-person increases in pain catastrophising were positively associated
with spouse reports of patient pain behavior
- Suggests the Communal coping aspect works as the spouse recognises higher pain behaviour suggesting the importance of PC in the communal coping model
What’s the Fear avoidance model: Role of catastrophizing (Vlayen et al., 2000)
-Fear and avoidance can lead us into a cycle of chronic pain (ideally we want to encourage reducing fears by confronting these to recover)
-People who often experience pain will catastrophise pain
-Become more scared of their pain and avoid anything that may worse it
-This can cause people to feel depressed
-The pain experience cycle repeats (check recording to ensure model is accurate)