4.6 Article

The Experience of Cognitive Intrusion of Pain: scale development and validation

Journal

PAIN
Volume 156, Issue 10, Pages 1978-1990

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000257

Keywords

Attentional disruption; Cognitive intrusion; Anxiety; Rumination

Funding

  1. Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare (United Kingdom) Limited
  2. University of Luxembourg

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Patients with chronic pain often report their cognition to be impaired by pain, and this observation has been supported by numerous studies measuring the effects of pain on cognitive task performance. Furthermore, cognitive intrusion by pain has been identified as one of 3 components of pain anxiety, alongside general distress and fear of pain. Although cognitive intrusion is a critical characteristic of pain, no specific measure designed to capture its effects exists. In 3 studies, we describe the initial development and validation of a new measure of pain interruption: the Experience of Cognitive Intrusion of Pain (ECIP) scale. In study 1, the ECIP scale was administered to a general population sample to assess its structure and construct validity. In study 2, the factor structure of the ECIP scale was confirmed in a large general population sample experiencing no pain, acute pain, or chronic pain. In study 3, we examined the predictive value of the ECIP scale in pain-related disability in fibromyalgia patients. The ECIP scale scores followed a normal distribution with good variance in a general population sample. The scale had high internal reliability and a clear 1-component structure. It differentiated between chronic pain and control groups, and it was a significant predictor of pain-related disability over and above pain intensity. Repairing attentional interruption from pain may become a novel target for pain management interventions, both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available