BACKGROUND: Our objective was to determine the feasibility of a cognitive behavioural symptom management program for the acute improvement of psychosocial risk factors of diminished quality of life (QoL) in men suffering from chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We assessed CP/CPPS symptoms and impact (i.e., chronic prostatitis symptom index [CPSI] pain, urinary, QoL domains), psychosocial risk factors were assessed at baseline and weekly for 8 weeks. We included the following psychosocial risk factors: catastrophizing (Pain Catastrophizing Scale, PCS), mood (Center for Epidemiological Studies in Depression Scale, CES-D), social support (Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support, MSPSS) and general pain (McGill Pain Questionnaire). Patient sessions dispute and replace pessimistic thinking with health-focused thinking and behaviour. RESULTS: Eleven men completed the psychosocial management program (mean age = 51.3, standard deviaton [SD] = 12.49). Mean CPSI baseline total score was 25.2 (SD = 10.21). Repeated measures ANOVAs showed the program was associated with significant linear reductions for pain (p = 0.051), disability (p= 0.020) and catastrophizing (p = 0.005), but no changes in depressive symptoms or social support. The CPSI baseline scores compared to follow-up scores (n = 8) were significantly reduced (p = 0.007), with CPSI pain (p = 0.015) and QoL impact (p = 0.013) reduced, but not for urinary scores. Correlations between change scores at the baseline and at 8 weeks for CPSI and psychosocial risk factors indicated that reductions in catastrophizing were most strongly associated with score reductions for the CPSI; these reductions, however, were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: The psychosocial management program targets and significantly reduces several empirically supported psychosocial risk factors associated with poorer CP/CPPS outcomes. Psychosocial management for CP/CPPS is feasible, but requires a randomized controlled trial with longitudinal follow-up.
BACKGROUND: Our objective was to determine the feasibility of a cognitive behavioural symptom management program for the acute improvement of psychosocial risk factors of diminished quality of life (QoL) in men suffering from chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We assessed CP/CPPS symptoms and impact (i.e., chronic prostatitis symptom index [CPSI] pain, urinary, QoL domains), psychosocial risk factors were assessed at baseline and weekly for 8 weeks. We included the following psychosocial risk factors: catastrophizing (Pain Catastrophizing Scale, PCS), mood (Center for Epidemiological Studies in Depression Scale, CES-D), social support (Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support, MSPSS) and general pain (McGill Pain Questionnaire). Patient sessions dispute and replace pessimistic thinking with health-focused thinking and behaviour. RESULTS: Eleven men completed the psychosocial management program (mean age = 51.3, standard deviaton [SD] = 12.49). Mean CPSI baseline total score was 25.2 (SD = 10.21). Repeated measures ANOVAs showed the program was associated with significant linear reductions for pain (p = 0.051), disability (p= 0.020) and catastrophizing (p = 0.005), but no changes in depressive symptoms or social support. The CPSI baseline scores compared to follow-up scores (n = 8) were significantly reduced (p = 0.007), with CPSI pain (p = 0.015) and QoL impact (p = 0.013) reduced, but not for urinary scores. Correlations between change scores at the baseline and at 8 weeks for CPSI and psychosocial risk factors indicated that reductions in catastrophizing were most strongly associated with score reductions for the CPSI; these reductions, however, were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: The psychosocial management program targets and significantly reduces several empirically supported psychosocial risk factors associated with poorer CP/CPPS outcomes. Psychosocial management for CP/CPPS is feasible, but requires a randomized controlled trial with longitudinal follow-up.
Authors: M J Sullivan; B Thorn; J A Haythornthwaite; F Keefe; M Martin; L A Bradley; J C Lefebvre Journal: Clin J Pain Date: 2001-03 Impact factor: 3.442
Authors: C F Reynolds; E Frank; J M Perel; S D Imber; C Cornes; M D Miller; S Mazumdar; P R Houck; M A Dew; J A Stack; B G Pollock; D J Kupfer Journal: JAMA Date: 1999-01-06 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Dean A Tripp; J Curtis Nickel; Yanlin Wang; Mark S Litwin; Mary McNaughton-Collins; J Richard Landis; Richard B Alexander; Anthony J Schaeffer; Michael P O'Leary; Michel A Pontari; Jackson E Fowler; Leroy M Nyberg; John W Kusek Journal: J Pain Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 5.820
Authors: M S Litwin; M McNaughton-Collins; F J Fowler; J C Nickel; E A Calhoun; M A Pontari; R B Alexander; J T Farrar; M P O'Leary Journal: J Urol Date: 1999-08 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Andrew Paul Baranowski; Anna L Mandeville; Sarah Edwards; Suzanne Brook; Julia Cambitzi; Melissa Cohen Journal: World J Urol Date: 2013-05-09 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Adrijana Krsmanovic; Dean A Tripp; J Curtis Nickel; Daniel A Shoskes; Michel Pontari; Mark S Litwin; Mary F McNaughton-Collins Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Laura Katz; Dean A Tripp; Mark Ropeleski; William Depew; J Curtis Nickel; Stephen Vanner; Michael J Beyak Journal: J Clin Psychol Med Settings Date: 2016-03