[回避-耐力快速筛查:在健康受试者中使用单级和双级反应标度对 AEFS 进行验证]。

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q3 ANESTHESIOLOGY Schmerz Pub Date : 2024-09-20 DOI:10.1007/s00482-024-00836-8
Sonja V Baumermann, Christina Titze, Monika I Hasenbring
{"title":"[回避-耐力快速筛查:在健康受试者中使用单级和双级反应标度对 AEFS 进行验证]。","authors":"Sonja V Baumermann, Christina Titze, Monika I Hasenbring","doi":"10.1007/s00482-024-00836-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>Chronic pain affects an enormous number of patients in Germany. Therefore, early detection is important using easy, quick and reasonable screening methods. The avoidance-endurance fast screen is currently available in two different versions: one asking for pain-related behaviour in light and severe pain and the other assessing overall severe pain-related behaviour. In this study we aim to examine the agreement between both scales and for the first time describe the role of protective psychological features such as resilience and self-compassion in this model.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Epidemiological cross-sectional study (n = 278) of a healthy cohort occasionally experiencing pain (< 3 months). The analysis was done using standard descriptive statistics, correlations (Spearman's rho) and deductive statistics (t-tests and one-factor ANOVA with post hoc Bonferroni correction) and effect sizes (Cohen's d). Matching of the instruments was calculated with Cohen's kappa.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The results showed a moderate agreement for the two versions. A validity check of the subgroups resulted in comparable findings. The one-level version scored higher in terms of pain persistence which caused subgroup changes from adaptive to eustress-endurance responses and from fear-avoidance to distress-endurance responses. The distress-endurance subgroup had significantly lower values of the trait self-compassion.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Based on the results of this study, the quality of agreement between the two AEFS versions is considered strong. Without the comparison between mild and strong pain, endurance behaviour was reported more often. According to these findings, overestimation of pain persistence behaviour using the one-level version might result. Therefore, future studies should re-evaluate the cut-offs. As reported in previous studies, protective psychological features showed the highest scores in the eustress-endurance subgroup.</p>","PeriodicalId":21572,"journal":{"name":"Schmerz","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"[Avoidance-endurance fast screen : AEFS validation with one- and two-level response scaling in healthy subjects].\",\"authors\":\"Sonja V Baumermann, Christina Titze, Monika I Hasenbring\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00482-024-00836-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>Chronic pain affects an enormous number of patients in Germany. Therefore, early detection is important using easy, quick and reasonable screening methods. The avoidance-endurance fast screen is currently available in two different versions: one asking for pain-related behaviour in light and severe pain and the other assessing overall severe pain-related behaviour. In this study we aim to examine the agreement between both scales and for the first time describe the role of protective psychological features such as resilience and self-compassion in this model.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Epidemiological cross-sectional study (n = 278) of a healthy cohort occasionally experiencing pain (< 3 months). The analysis was done using standard descriptive statistics, correlations (Spearman's rho) and deductive statistics (t-tests and one-factor ANOVA with post hoc Bonferroni correction) and effect sizes (Cohen's d). Matching of the instruments was calculated with Cohen's kappa.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The results showed a moderate agreement for the two versions. A validity check of the subgroups resulted in comparable findings. The one-level version scored higher in terms of pain persistence which caused subgroup changes from adaptive to eustress-endurance responses and from fear-avoidance to distress-endurance responses. The distress-endurance subgroup had significantly lower values of the trait self-compassion.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Based on the results of this study, the quality of agreement between the two AEFS versions is considered strong. Without the comparison between mild and strong pain, endurance behaviour was reported more often. According to these findings, overestimation of pain persistence behaviour using the one-level version might result. Therefore, future studies should re-evaluate the cut-offs. As reported in previous studies, protective psychological features showed the highest scores in the eustress-endurance subgroup.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21572,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Schmerz\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Schmerz\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00482-024-00836-8\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Schmerz","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00482-024-00836-8","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景和目的:在德国,慢性疼痛影响着大量患者。因此,使用简单、快速、合理的筛查方法进行早期检测非常重要。回避-忍耐快速筛查目前有两种不同的版本:一种是询问轻度和重度疼痛时与疼痛相关的行为,另一种是评估与严重疼痛相关的总体行为。在本研究中,我们旨在检查这两种量表之间的一致性,并首次描述保护性心理特征(如复原力和自我同情)在这一模型中的作用:流行病学横断面研究(n = 278),研究对象为偶尔经历疼痛的健康人群(结果显示,两个量表的一致性适中,但在 "疼痛 "和 "疼痛 "之间存在差异:结果显示,两个版本的结果基本一致。对分组进行有效性检查后得出的结果具有可比性。单级版本在疼痛持续性方面得分较高,这导致了亚组从适应性反应到舒缓-耐受性反应,以及从恐惧-回避到痛苦-耐受性反应的变化。痛苦-忍耐亚组的自我同情特质值明显较低:根据本研究的结果,两个 AEFS 版本之间的一致性被认为很高。如果不对轻微疼痛和强烈疼痛进行比较,则更多人报告了忍耐行为。根据这些结果,使用单级版本可能会导致对疼痛持续行为的高估。因此,未来的研究应重新评估分界点。正如之前的研究中所报告的那样,保护性心理特征在舒缓-忍耐亚组中得分最高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
[Avoidance-endurance fast screen : AEFS validation with one- and two-level response scaling in healthy subjects].

Background and objectives: Chronic pain affects an enormous number of patients in Germany. Therefore, early detection is important using easy, quick and reasonable screening methods. The avoidance-endurance fast screen is currently available in two different versions: one asking for pain-related behaviour in light and severe pain and the other assessing overall severe pain-related behaviour. In this study we aim to examine the agreement between both scales and for the first time describe the role of protective psychological features such as resilience and self-compassion in this model.

Materials and methods: Epidemiological cross-sectional study (n = 278) of a healthy cohort occasionally experiencing pain (< 3 months). The analysis was done using standard descriptive statistics, correlations (Spearman's rho) and deductive statistics (t-tests and one-factor ANOVA with post hoc Bonferroni correction) and effect sizes (Cohen's d). Matching of the instruments was calculated with Cohen's kappa.

Results: The results showed a moderate agreement for the two versions. A validity check of the subgroups resulted in comparable findings. The one-level version scored higher in terms of pain persistence which caused subgroup changes from adaptive to eustress-endurance responses and from fear-avoidance to distress-endurance responses. The distress-endurance subgroup had significantly lower values of the trait self-compassion.

Conclusions: Based on the results of this study, the quality of agreement between the two AEFS versions is considered strong. Without the comparison between mild and strong pain, endurance behaviour was reported more often. According to these findings, overestimation of pain persistence behaviour using the one-level version might result. Therefore, future studies should re-evaluate the cut-offs. As reported in previous studies, protective psychological features showed the highest scores in the eustress-endurance subgroup.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Schmerz
Schmerz 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
20.00%
发文量
64
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Der Schmerz is an internationally recognized journal and addresses all scientists, practitioners and psychologists, dealing with the treatment of pain patients or working in pain research. The aim of the journal is to enhance the treatment of pain patients in the long run. Review articles provide an overview on selected topics and offer the reader a summary of current findings from all fields of pain research, pain management and pain symptom management. Freely submitted original papers allow the presentation of important clinical studies and serve the scientific exchange. Case reports feature interesting cases and aim at optimizing diagnostic and therapeutic strategies. Review articles under the rubric ''Continuing Medical Education'' present verified results of scientific research and their integration into daily practice.
期刊最新文献
[Health services research in acute pain medicine : Where do we come from in Germany?] [Surgical treatment of trigeminal pain]. [What is health services research?] [Interdisciplinary multimodal pain therapy: does the dose make a difference? : A comparison from routine clinical care]. [What determines the overall quality of postoperative pain management? A question of perspective].
×
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