Kelly L Forys1, Lynnda M Dahlquist. 1. Department of Psychology, University of Maryland Baltimore County, Baltimore, MD, USA. forys@umbc.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of matching an individual's coping style (low, mixed, or high monitoring) to an appropriate cognitive strategy (distraction or sensation monitoring) to improve pain management. DESIGN: This study used a split-plot factorial design in a laboratory setting. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Main outcomes were pain threshold, pain tolerance, pain intensity, pain affect, and anxiety. RESULTS: The results of the 2 x 3 x 3 (Experimental Condition x Coping Style x Trial) analysis of variance (ANOVA) interaction were significant for pain threshold scores, F(4, 178) = 2.95, p < .01. Low monitors in the matched distraction trial had higher pain threshold scores than during baseline, t(15) = -2.68, p = .017, and the mismatched sensation monitoring trial, t(15) = 2.80, p = .014. High monitors' pain threshold scores were higher than baseline only during the matched sensation monitoring trial, t(27) = -2.75, p = .010. The results of the 2 x 3 x 3 ANOVA interaction were not significant for pain tolerance scores; however, when the mixed monitors were excluded, the 3-way interaction was significant, F(2, 124) = 3.48, p < .05. The results were nonsignificant for pain intensity, pain affect, and anxiety. CONCLUSION: Results demonstrate that matching coping style to the appropriate cognitive strategy is important for improving pain threshold and pain tolerance; however, matching did not reduce pain intensity, pain affect, or anxiety. Future studies should explore the explanation for differential responses of high and low monitors and should test these hypotheses in a clinical setting.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of matching an individual's coping style (low, mixed, or high monitoring) to an appropriate cognitive strategy (distraction or sensation monitoring) to improve pain management. DESIGN: This study used a split-plot factorial design in a laboratory setting. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Main outcomes were pain threshold, pain tolerance, pain intensity, pain affect, and anxiety. RESULTS: The results of the 2 x 3 x 3 (Experimental Condition x Coping Style x Trial) analysis of variance (ANOVA) interaction were significant for pain threshold scores, F(4, 178) = 2.95, p < .01. Low monitors in the matched distraction trial had higher pain threshold scores than during baseline, t(15) = -2.68, p = .017, and the mismatched sensation monitoring trial, t(15) = 2.80, p = .014. High monitors' pain threshold scores were higher than baseline only during the matched sensation monitoring trial, t(27) = -2.75, p = .010. The results of the 2 x 3 x 3 ANOVA interaction were not significant for pain tolerance scores; however, when the mixed monitors were excluded, the 3-way interaction was significant, F(2, 124) = 3.48, p < .05. The results were nonsignificant for pain intensity, pain affect, and anxiety. CONCLUSION: Results demonstrate that matching coping style to the appropriate cognitive strategy is important for improving pain threshold and pain tolerance; however, matching did not reduce pain intensity, pain affect, or anxiety. Future studies should explore the explanation for differential responses of high and low monitors and should test these hypotheses in a clinical setting.
Authors: Lisa Fox; Jane C Walsh; Todd G Morrison; David O' Gorman; Nancy Ruane; Caroline Mitchell; John J Carey; Robert Coughlan; Brian E McGuire Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-04-12 Impact factor: 3.240