A meta-analysis of fear-avoidance and pain intensity: The paradox of chronic pain

Author:

Kroska Emily B.1

Affiliation:

1. University of Iowa , E11 Seashore Hall , Iowa City , IA 52242 , USA

Abstract

Abstract Background The fear-avoidance model of chronic pain has established avoidance as a predictor of negative outcomes in chronic pain patients. Avoidance, or deliberate attempts to suppress or prevent unwanted experiences (e.g., pain), has been studied extensively, with multiple reviews implicating this behavior as a predictor of disability, physical disuse, and depression. Despite hundreds of studies examining the associations between different components of this model (i.e., catastrophizing, fear, avoidance, depression), the association between fear-avoidance and pain intensity has remained unclear. The present study seeks to clarify this association across samples. Method The present analyses synthesize the literature (articles from PsycInfo, PubMed, and ProQuest) to determine if fear-avoidance and pain intensity are consistently correlated across studies, samples, and measures. Eligible studies measured pain intensity and fear-avoidance cross-sectionally in chronic pain patients. The search resulted in 118 studies eligible for inclusion. A random-effects model was used to estimate the weighted mean effect size. Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software was used for all analyses. Moderation analyses elucidate the variables that affect the strength of this association. Meta-regression and meta-ANOVA analyses were conducted to examine moderating variables. Moderator variables include demographic characteristics, pain characteristics, study characteristics, and national cultural characteristics (using Hofstede’s cultural dimensions). Publication bias was examined using the funnel plot and the p-curve. Results Results indicate a small-to-moderate positive association between fear-avoidance and pain intensity. The results were stable across characteristics of the sample, including mean age, gender distribution, marital status, and duration of pain. Moderation analyses indicate that the measures utilized and cultural differences affect the strength of this association. Weaker effect sizes were observed for studies that utilized measures of experiential avoidance when compared to studies that utilized pain-specific fear-avoidance measures. Studies that utilized multiple measures of fear-avoidance had stronger effect sizes than studies that utilized a single measure of fear-avoidance. Three of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions moderated the association, including Power Distance Index, Individualism versus Collectivism, and Indulgence versus Restraint. Conclusions The present meta-analysis synthesizes the results from studies examining the association between fear-avoidance and pain intensity among individuals with chronic pain. The positive association indicates that those with increased fear-avoidance have higher pain intensity, and those with higher pain intensity have increased fear-avoidance. Findings indicate that cultural differences and measurement instruments are important to consider in understanding the variables that affect this association. The significant cultural variations may indicate that it is important to consider the function of avoidance behavior in different cultures in an effort to better understand each patient’s cultural beliefs, as well as how these beliefs are related to pain and associated coping strategies. Implications The results from the current meta-analysis can be used to inform interventions for patients with chronic pain. In particular, those with more intense pain or increased fear-avoidance should be targeted for prevention and intervention work. Within the intervention itself, avoidance should be undermined and established as an ineffective strategy to manage pain in an effort to prevent disability, depression, and physical deconditioning.

Publisher

Walter de Gruyter GmbH

Subject

Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine,Neurology (clinical)

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3