3.9 Article

Pain experience of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans with comorbid chronic pain and posttraumatic stress

期刊

出版社

JOURNAL REHAB RES & DEV
DOI: 10.1682/JRRD.2013.06.0134

关键词

chronic pain; cognitions; comorbidity; mental health; musculoskeletal pain; pain severity; posttraumatic stress; trauma; Veterans; Veteran health

资金

  1. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Rehabilitation Research and Development Merit Review Award [F44371]
  2. VA Health Services Research and Development Associated Health Fellowship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Chronic pain and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) co-occur at high rates, and Veterans from recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan may be particularly vulnerable to both conditions. The objective of this study was to identify key aspects of chronic pain, cognitions, and psychological distress associated with comorbid PTSD among this sample of Veterans. Baseline data were analyzed from a randomized controlled trial testing a stepped-care intervention for chronic musculoskeletal pain. Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation Enduring Freedom (OIF/OEF) Veterans with chronic pain only (n = 173) were compared with those with chronic pain and clinically significant posttraumatic stress symptoms (n = 68). Group differences on pain characteristics, pain cognitions, and psychological distress were evaluated. Results demonstrated that OIF/OEF Veterans with comorbid chronic musculoskeletal pain and PTSD experienced higher pain severity, greater pain-related disability and increased pain interference, more maladaptive pain cognitions (e. g., catastrophizing, self-efficacy, pain centrality), and higher affective distress than those with chronic pain alone. Veterans of recent military conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan may be particularly vulnerable to the compounded adverse effects of chronic pain and PTSD. These results highlight a more intense and disabling pain and psychological experience for those with chronic pain and PTSD than for those without PTSD.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据