4.6 Article

Functional self-efficacy and pain-related disability among older veterans with chronic pain in a primary care setting

Journal

PAIN
Volume 104, Issue 1-2, Pages 131-137

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1016/S0304-3959(02)00471-2

Keywords

chronic pain; functional self-efficacy; disability; older veterans; primary care

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We examined the relationship between functional self-efficacy and pain-related disability in a sample of older veterans with chronic pain. A total of 1045 veterans aged 65 years or older who received primary care at the VA Connecticut Healthcare System in West Haven, CT, were assessed for the presence of chronic pain (i.e. pain due to a non-cancer cause for greater than or equal to3 consecutive months in the past 12 months); 303 (26%) screened positive; and 245 (81%) participated. Using a ten-item functional self-efficacy questionnaire (scale: 0-40), participants were categorized into three functional self-efficacy groups: low, score less than or equal to 26; moderate, score 27-38; and high, score 39-40. Pain-related disability was defined as having one or more days of restricted activity due to pain in the past month. The mean age was 75 years (s.d. = 5.1) and most participants were male (84%) and Caucasian (96%). Twenty-five percent of the sample had low, 50% had moderate, and 25% had high functional self-efficacy. The prevalence of pain-related disability was 56%. After adjusting for potential confounders, the likelihood of pain-related disability was significantly higher for those with moderate vs. high (OR = 2.05, 95% CI 1.03-4.06) and low vs. high (OR = 4.77, 95% CI 1.96-11.61) functional self-efficacy. Functional self-efficacy was a strong and independent factor associated with pain-related disability among older veterans with chronic pain. (C) 2003 International Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

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