CONTEXT: Research, guidelines, and experts in the field suggest that persons with cognitive impairment report pain less often and at a lower intensity than those without cognitive impairment. However, this presupposition is derived from research with important limitations, namely, inadequate power and lack of multivariate adjustment. OBJECTIVES: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of the Canadian Study of Health and Aging to evaluate the relationship between cognitive status and pain self-report. METHODS: Cognitive status was assessed using the Modified Mini-Mental State Examination. Pain was assessed using a 5-point verbal descriptor scale. For analysis, responses were dichotomized into "no pain" vs. "any pain" and "pain at a moderate or higher intensity" vs. "pain not at a moderate or higher intensity." Additional predictors included demographics, physical function, depression, and comorbidity. RESULTS: Of 5,703 eligible participants, 306 (5.4%) did not meet inclusion criteria, leaving a total of 5,397, of whom 876 (16.2%) were cognitively impaired. In the unadjusted analysis, significantly more cognitively intact (n=2,541; 56.2%) than cognitively impaired (n=456; 52.1%; P=0.03) participants reported noncancer pain. There was no significant difference in the proportion of cognitively intact (n=1,623; 35.9%) and impaired (n=329; 37.6%; P=0.36) participants who reported pain to be at moderate or higher intensity. In multivariate analyses, cognitively impaired participants did not have lower odds of reporting any noncancer pain (odds ratio [OR]=0.83 [0.68-1.01]; P=0.07) or pain at a moderate or higher intensity (OR=0.95 [0.78-1.16]; P=0.62). CONCLUSION: Non-cancer pain was equally prevalent in people with and without cognitive impairment, which contrasts with the currently held opinion that cognitively impaired persons report noncancer pain less often and at a lower intensity. Copyright (c) 2010 U.S. Cancer Pain Relief Committee. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
CONTEXT: Research, guidelines, and experts in the field suggest that persons with cognitive impairment report pain less often and at a lower intensity than those without cognitive impairment. However, this presupposition is derived from research with important limitations, namely, inadequate power and lack of multivariate adjustment. OBJECTIVES: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of the Canadian Study of Health and Aging to evaluate the relationship between cognitive status and pain self-report. METHODS: Cognitive status was assessed using the Modified Mini-Mental State Examination. Pain was assessed using a 5-point verbal descriptor scale. For analysis, responses were dichotomized into "no pain" vs. "any pain" and "pain at a moderate or higher intensity" vs. "pain not at a moderate or higher intensity." Additional predictors included demographics, physical function, depression, and comorbidity. RESULTS: Of 5,703 eligible participants, 306 (5.4%) did not meet inclusion criteria, leaving a total of 5,397, of whom 876 (16.2%) were cognitively impaired. In the unadjusted analysis, significantly more cognitively intact (n=2,541; 56.2%) than cognitively impaired (n=456; 52.1%; P=0.03) participants reported noncancer pain. There was no significant difference in the proportion of cognitively intact (n=1,623; 35.9%) and impaired (n=329; 37.6%; P=0.36) participants who reported pain to be at moderate or higher intensity. In multivariate analyses, cognitively impaired participants did not have lower odds of reporting any noncancer pain (odds ratio [OR]=0.83 [0.68-1.01]; P=0.07) or pain at a moderate or higher intensity (OR=0.95 [0.78-1.16]; P=0.62). CONCLUSION:Non-cancer pain was equally prevalent in people with and without cognitive impairment, which contrasts with the currently held opinion that cognitively impaired persons report noncancer pain less often and at a lower intensity. Copyright (c) 2010 U.S. Cancer Pain Relief Committee. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: Wim Opstelten; Jan W Mauritz; Niek J de Wit; Albert J M van Wijck; Wim A B Stalman; Gerrit A van Essen Journal: Fam Pract Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 2.267
Authors: R Sean Morrison; Jay Magaziner; Marvin Gilbert; Kenneth J Koval; Mary Ann McLaughlin; Gretchen Orosz; Elton Strauss; Albert L Siu Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Todd B Monroe; John C Gore; Li Min Chen; Lorraine C Mion; Ronald L Cowan Journal: J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol Date: 2012-12-31 Impact factor: 2.680
Authors: Joseph L Goulet; Cynthia Brandt; Stephen Crystal; David A Fiellin; Cynthia Gibert; Adam J Gordon; Robert D Kerns; Stephen Maisto; Amy C Justice Journal: Med Care Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Lauren J Hunt; Kenneth E Covinsky; Kristine Yaffe; Caroline E Stephens; Yinghui Miao; W John Boscardin; Alex K Smith Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2015-07-22 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Wilco P Achterberg; Marjoleine J C Pieper; Annelore H van Dalen-Kok; Margot W M de Waal; Bettina S Husebo; Stefan Lautenbacher; Miriam Kunz; Erik J A Scherder; Anne Corbett Journal: Clin Interv Aging Date: 2013-11-01 Impact factor: 4.458