Importance of the Graded Chronic Pain Scale as a Biopsychosocial Screening Instrument in TMD Pain Patient Subtyping.

IF 1.9 3区 医学 Q2 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE Journal of Oral & Facial Pain and Headache Pub Date : 2021-09-01 DOI:10.11607/ofph.2983
Maria Hietaharju, Ritva Näpänkangas, Kirsi Sipilä, Tuija Teerijoki-Oksa, Johanna Tanner, Pentti Kemppainen, Mimmi Tolvanen, Tuija Suvinen
{"title":"Importance of the Graded Chronic Pain Scale as a Biopsychosocial Screening Instrument in TMD Pain Patient Subtyping.","authors":"Maria Hietaharju,&nbsp;Ritva Näpänkangas,&nbsp;Kirsi Sipilä,&nbsp;Tuija Teerijoki-Oksa,&nbsp;Johanna Tanner,&nbsp;Pentti Kemppainen,&nbsp;Mimmi Tolvanen,&nbsp;Tuija Suvinen","doi":"10.11607/ofph.2983","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>To compare the suitability of Graded Chronic Pain Scale (GCPS) pain intensity and interference assessments (GCPS version 1.0 vs 2.0) for the biopsychosocial screening and subtyping of Finnish tertiary care referral patients with TMD pain.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Altogether, 197 TMD pain patients participated in this study. All patients received Axis II specialist-level psychosocial questionnaires from the Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (DC/TMD-FIN) and Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD-FIN), as well as questionnaires for the assessment of additional pain-related, biopsychosocial, and treatment-related variables. Clinical examinations were performed according to the DC/TMD Axis I protocol. The patients were categorized into TMD subtypes 1, 2, and 3 (GCPS I and II-low; II-high; and III and IV, respectively) based on their biopsychosocial profiles according to GCPS versions 1.0 and 2.0.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The distribution of TMD pain patients into TMD subtypes was similar according to the GCPS 1.0 compared to the GCPS 2.0. Over 50% of the patients were moderately (TMD subtype 2) or severely (TMD subtype 3) compromised. Patients in subtype 3 experienced biopsychosocial symptoms and reported previous health care visits significantly more often than patients in subtypes 1 and 2. Patients in subtype 2 reported intermediate biopsychosocial burden compared to subtypes 1 and 3.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>TMD pain patients differ in their biopsychosocial profiles, and, similarly to the GCPS 1.0, the GCPS 2.0 is a suitable instrument for categorizing TMD tertiary care pain patients into three biopsychosocially relevant TMD subtypes. The GCPS 2.0 can be regarded as a suitable initial screening tool for adjunct personalized or comprehensive multidisciplinary assessment.</p>","PeriodicalId":48800,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Oral & Facial Pain and Headache","volume":"35 4","pages":"303-316"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Oral & Facial Pain and Headache","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11607/ofph.2983","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Aims: To compare the suitability of Graded Chronic Pain Scale (GCPS) pain intensity and interference assessments (GCPS version 1.0 vs 2.0) for the biopsychosocial screening and subtyping of Finnish tertiary care referral patients with TMD pain.

Methods: Altogether, 197 TMD pain patients participated in this study. All patients received Axis II specialist-level psychosocial questionnaires from the Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (DC/TMD-FIN) and Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD-FIN), as well as questionnaires for the assessment of additional pain-related, biopsychosocial, and treatment-related variables. Clinical examinations were performed according to the DC/TMD Axis I protocol. The patients were categorized into TMD subtypes 1, 2, and 3 (GCPS I and II-low; II-high; and III and IV, respectively) based on their biopsychosocial profiles according to GCPS versions 1.0 and 2.0.

Results: The distribution of TMD pain patients into TMD subtypes was similar according to the GCPS 1.0 compared to the GCPS 2.0. Over 50% of the patients were moderately (TMD subtype 2) or severely (TMD subtype 3) compromised. Patients in subtype 3 experienced biopsychosocial symptoms and reported previous health care visits significantly more often than patients in subtypes 1 and 2. Patients in subtype 2 reported intermediate biopsychosocial burden compared to subtypes 1 and 3.

Conclusion: TMD pain patients differ in their biopsychosocial profiles, and, similarly to the GCPS 1.0, the GCPS 2.0 is a suitable instrument for categorizing TMD tertiary care pain patients into three biopsychosocially relevant TMD subtypes. The GCPS 2.0 can be regarded as a suitable initial screening tool for adjunct personalized or comprehensive multidisciplinary assessment.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
慢性疼痛分级量表作为TMD疼痛患者分型的生物心理社会筛查工具的重要性。
目的:比较分级慢性疼痛量表(GCPS)疼痛强度和干预评估(GCPS版本1.0 vs 2.0)在芬兰三级保健转诊TMD疼痛患者的生物心理社会筛查和分型中的适用性。方法:197例TMD疼痛患者参与本研究。所有患者都接受了来自颞下颌疾病诊断标准(DC/TMD-FIN)和颞下颌疾病研究诊断标准(RDC/TMD-FIN)的轴II专家级社会心理问卷,以及评估其他疼痛相关、生物心理社会和治疗相关变量的问卷。临床检查按照DC/TMD轴I协议进行。患者分为TMD亚型1、2和3 (GCPS I和II-low;II-high;根据GCPS 1.0和2.0版本的生物心理社会概况,分别为III和IV)。结果:与GCPS 2.0相比,GCPS 1.0对TMD疼痛患者在TMD亚型中的分布相似。超过50%的患者为中度(TMD亚型2)或重度(TMD亚型3)损害。与亚型1和亚型2患者相比,亚型3患者经历了生物心理社会症状并报告了以前的卫生保健就诊次数。与亚型1和亚型3相比,亚型2患者报告的生物心理社会负担处于中等水平。结论:TMD疼痛患者的生物心理社会特征存在差异,与GCPS 1.0相似,GCPS 2.0是将TMD三级护理疼痛患者分为三种生物心理社会相关的TMD亚型的合适工具。GCPS 2.0可被视为一个合适的初始筛选工具,用于辅助个性化或综合多学科评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Oral & Facial Pain and Headache
Journal of Oral & Facial Pain and Headache DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
4.00%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: Founded upon sound scientific principles, this journal continues to make important contributions that strongly influence the work of dental and medical professionals involved in treating oral and facial pain, including temporomandibular disorders, and headache. In addition to providing timely scientific research and clinical articles, the journal presents diagnostic techniques and treatment therapies for oral and facial pain, headache, mandibular dysfunction, and occlusion and covers pharmacology, physical therapy, surgery, and other pain-management methods.
期刊最新文献
Assessing the occurrence of hypertension in patients receiving calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies for episodic and chronic migraine: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Associations between sleep bruxism and primary headaches: a descriptive study. Axis I diagnosis profile according to the Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (DC/TMD): comparison between hospital-based orofacial pain clinic and dental academic-based orofacial pain clinic. Comparison of the effectiveness of botulinum toxin, dry needling, pharmacological treatment, and manual therapy for bruxism-induced myalgia: a prospective randomized study. Exploring the efficacy of acupuncture for tension-type headache: a literature review and insights from traditional Chinese medicine.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1