Cited by 98Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationPediatric Pain Management TechniquesPain Management and Treatment

Beneficial Effects of Improvement in Depression, Pain Catastrophizing, and Anxiety on Pain Outcomes: A 12-Month Longitudinal Analysis

Open access
Scott, Eric L., Kroenke, Kurt, Wu, Jingwei, Yu, Zhangsheng·2016·The Journal of Pain

Abstract

Unlabelled Depression, pain catastrophizing, and anxiety commonly co-occur with chronic pain. However, the degree to which improvement in these psychological comorbidities predicts subsequent pain outcomes and, in particular, the relative effects of these 3 psychological factors with respect to each other is only partially known. Longitudinal analysis of 250 primary care patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain enrolled in the Stepped Care to Optimize Pain care Effectiveness (SCOPE) trial was examined, using data gathered at baseline, and at 3 and 12 months. Mixed effects model repeated measures analyses were used to determine if changes in depression, pain catastrophizing, and anxiety predicted a subsequent reduction in pain intensity or interference and pain-related disability. Defining a clinically significant change as twice the standard error of measurement for each predictor, we found that a 2-standard error of measurement improvement in depression, pain catastrophizing, and anxiety resulted in, respectively, an effect size decrease in pain intensity or interference of .45, .33, and .12; a 14%, 12%, and 6% reduction in the number of pain-specific disability days; and a 43%, 30%, and 28% decreased likelihood of high disability (defined as ≥10 pain-specific disability days in the past 4 weeks). In summary, improvements in 3 common psychological comorbidities predicted better pain outcomes.Perspective Because depression, pain catastrophizing, and anxiety commonly accompany chronic pain and might adversely affect pain outcomes, treatment of these modifiable psychological factors is warranted to optimize the effectiveness of pain-specific therapies.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jpain.2015.10.011

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Scott, E. L., Kroenke, K., Wu, J., & Yu, Z.
Affiliations
  • Indiana University Indianapolis (US)
  • Regenstrief Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Kroenke, Kurt
Venue
The Journal of Pain
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-02
Volume
17
Issue
2
Pages
215-222
ISSN
1526-5900 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2126059053
Cited by
98
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 4
FWCI
5.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
  • Health Services Research and Development
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pediatric Pain Management Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Treatment
Keywords
chronic musculoskeletal pain, depression, pain catastrophizing, anxiety, psychological comorbidity, pain intensity, pain interference, pain-related disability, stepped care, primary care, pain outcomes, treatment response prediction
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Anxiety, Depression, Female, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Middle Aged, Random Allocation, Comorbidity, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Catastrophization, Chronic Pain

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review