4.4 Article

Long-term, non-specific spinal pain: reliable and valid subgroups of patients

Journal

BEHAVIOUR RESEARCH AND THERAPY
Volume 39, Issue 1, Pages 75-87

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0005-7967(99)00175-8

Keywords

Multidimensional Pain Inventory - Swedish Language Version (MPI-S); chronic pain; assessment; reliability; validity; patient types

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this study was to identify reliable and valid subgroups of spinal pain patients, using data from the Swedish version of the Multidimensional Pain Inventory (MPI-S). A second aim was to test the generalisability of the three patient profiles described in earlier studies on the MPI (adaptive coper, dysfunctional and interpersonally distressed patients). The study base consisted of two samples of individuals suffering from long-term, non-specific spinal pain and the results were validated across these samples. Cluster analysis was used to detect distinct groups of patients and the validity of these subgroups was evaluated on variables not used to generate the cluster solution. One subgroup was characterised by lower pain severity, lower interference with everyday activities, lower affective distress and higher life control than the other two subgroups. This patient profile was similar to the MPI adaptive coper patients. A second subgroup resembled the dysfunctional patient profile, thus displaying a worse adjustment to chronic pain than the AC patients. The third patient group reported significantly lower levels of social support from significant others than the other subgroups. This patient profile was similar to that of the interpersonally distressed patient group. Taken together, the results support the reliability, validity and generalisability of three subgroups of chronic pain patients derived from the MPI-S. (C) 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. 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

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available