4.2 Article

Kinesiophobia and maladaptive coping strategies prevent improvements in pain catastrophizing following pain neuroscience education in fibromyalgia/chronic fatigue syndrome: An explorative study

期刊

PHYSIOTHERAPY THEORY AND PRACTICE
卷 33, 期 8, 页码 653-660

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/09593985.2017.1331481

关键词

Chronic fatigue syndrome; fibromyalgia; pain neuroscience education

资金

  1. Special Research Fund of Ghent University
  2. European College for Decongestive Lymphatic Therapy, The Netherlands

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Many patients with chronic fatigue syndrome(CFS) and/or fibromyalgia(FM) have little understanding of their condition, leading to maladaptive pain cognitions and coping strategies. These should be tackled during therapy, for instance by pain neurophysiology education (PNE). Although positive effects of PNE are well-established, it remains unclear why some patients benefit more than others. This paper aims at exploring characteristics of patients responding poor to PNE to further improve its effectiveness. Data from two RCT's were pooled to search for baseline predictors. Subjects (n = 39) suffering from CFS/FM, as defined by the American College of Rheumatology, underwent PNE treatment. The Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS); Pain Coping Inventory (PCI); and Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (TSK) were defined as outcome measures. There was a significant negative relationship between baseline TSK and the change in both PCS total score (r = -0.584; p < 0.001) and PCS rumination (r = -0.346; p < 0.05). There was a significant negative relationship between the change in PCS total score and baseline PCI worrying (r = -0.795; p < 0.001) and retreating (r = -0.356; p < 0.05). FM/CFS patients who tend to worry allot about their pain and with high levels of kinesiophobia are likely to experience less reductions in catastrophizing following PNE. It seems that PNE alone is insufficient to reduce catastrophic thinking regarding pain, and supplementary treatment is needed.

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

4.2
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