Literature DB >> 28850415

Sex moderates the effects of positive and negative affect on clinical pain in patients with knee osteoarthritis.

Traci J Speed1, Jessica M Richards2, Patrick H Finan3, Michael T Smith3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Sex differences in clinical pain severity and response to experimental pain are commonly reported, with women generally showing greater vulnerability. Affect, including state (a single rating) and stable (average daily ratings over two weeks) positive affect and negative affect has also been found to impact pain sensitivity and severity, and research suggests that affect may modulate pain differentially as a function of sex. The current study aimed to examine sex as a moderator of the relationships between affect and pain-related outcomes among participants with knee osteoarthritis (KOA).
METHODS: One hundred and seventy-nine participants (59 men) with KOA completed electronic diaries assessing clinical pain, positive affect, and negative affect. A subset of participants (n=120) underwent quantitative sensory testing, from which a single index of central sensitization to pain was derived. We used multiple regression models to test for the interactive effects of sex and affect (positive versus negative and stable versus state) on pain-related outcomes. We used mixed effects models to test for the moderating effects of sex on the relationships between state affect and pain over time.
RESULTS: Sex differences in affect and pain were identified, with men reporting significantly higher stable positive affect and lower central sensitization to pain indexed by quantitative sensory testing, as well as marginally lower KOA-specific clinical pain compared to women. Moreover, there was an interaction between stable positive affect and sex on KOA-specific clinical pain and average daily non-specific pain ratings. Post hoc analyses revealed that men showed trends towards an inverse relationship between stable positive affect and pain outcomes, while women showed no relationship between positive affect and pain. There was also a significant interaction between sex and stable negative affect and sex on KOA-specific pain such that men showed a significantly stronger positive relationship between stable negative affect and KOA-specific pain than women. Sex did not interact with state affect on pain outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that men may be particularly sensitive to the effects of stable positive affect and negative affect on clinical pain. Future work with larger samples is needed in order to identify potential mechanisms driving the sex-specific effects of affect on pain. IMPLICATIONS: The current study provides novel data that suggesting that the association of positive affect, negative affect, and pain are different in men versus women with KOA. Further understanding of the difference in affective expression between men and women may lead to the development of novel therapeutic interventions and help to identify additional modifiable factors in the prevention and management of pain.
Copyright © 2017 Scandinavian Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Knee osteoarthritis; Pain; Quantitative sensory testing; Sex

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28850415      PMCID: PMC5576503          DOI: 10.1016/j.sjpain.2017.03.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Scand J Pain        ISSN: 1877-8860


  71 in total

1.  A meta-analytic review of pain perception across the menstrual cycle.

Authors:  Joseph L Riley; Michael E Robinson; Emily A Wise; Donald Price
Journal:  Pain       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 6.961

2.  Validation of the Insomnia Severity Index as an outcome measure for insomnia research.

Authors:  C H. Bastien; A Vallières; C M. Morin
Journal:  Sleep Med       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 3.492

3.  Behavioral activation and inhibition in everyday life.

Authors:  S L Gable; H T Reis; A J Elliot
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  2000-06

4.  Chronic pain in Australia: a prevalence study.

Authors:  F M Blyth; L M March; A J Brnabic; L R Jorm; M Williamson; M J Cousins
Journal:  Pain       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 6.961

5.  Sex differences in pain.

Authors:  K J Berkley
Journal:  Behav Brain Sci       Date:  1997-09       Impact factor: 12.579

6.  Everyday life with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis: independent effects of disease and gender on daily pain, mood, and coping.

Authors:  Glenn Affleck; Howard Tennen; Francis J Keefe; John C Lefebvre; Susmita Kashikar-Zuck; Katherine Wright; Kathleen Starr; David S Caldwell
Journal:  Pain       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 6.961

7.  Pain and emotion: effects of affective picture modulation.

Authors:  M W Meagher; R C Arnau; J L Rhudy
Journal:  Psychosom Med       Date:  2001 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 4.312

8.  The relationship of gender to pain, pain behavior, and disability in osteoarthritis patients: the role of catastrophizing.

Authors:  Francis J Keefe; John C Lefebvre; Jennifer R Egert; Glenn Affleck; Michael J Sullivan; David S Caldwell
Journal:  Pain       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 6.961

9.  Fear and anxiety: divergent effects on human pain thresholds.

Authors:  J L Rhudy; M W Meagher
Journal:  Pain       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 6.961

10.  Factors related to sleep disturbance in older adults experiencing knee pain or knee pain with radiographic evidence of knee osteoarthritis.

Authors:  S Wilcox; G A Brenes; D Levine; M A Sevick; S A Shumaker; T Craven
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 5.562

View more
  1 in total

1.  Psychological Predictors of Perceived Age and Chronic Pain Impact in Individuals With and Without Knee Osteoarthritis.

Authors:  Staja Q Booker; Kimberly T Sibille; Ellen L Terry; Josue S Cardoso; Burel R Goodin; Adriana Sotolongo; Roland Staud; David T Redden; Laurence A Bradley; Roger B Fillingim; Emily J Bartley
Journal:  Clin J Pain       Date:  2020-08       Impact factor: 3.423

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.