Cargando…

Assessing Beliefs Underlying Rumination About Pain: Development and Validation of the Pain Metacognitions Questionnaire

Metacognitions, which are beliefs about our own thinking processes, can modulate worry and rumination and thereby influence emotional distress. This study aimed to develop a self-report measure of unhelpful pain-related metacognitions which might serve as a clinical and research tool to better under...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Schütze, Robert, Rees, Clare, Smith, Anne, Slater, Helen, Catley, Mark, O’Sullivan, Peter
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6497779/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31080425
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00910
_version_ 1783415529889857536
author Schütze, Robert
Rees, Clare
Smith, Anne
Slater, Helen
Catley, Mark
O’Sullivan, Peter
author_facet Schütze, Robert
Rees, Clare
Smith, Anne
Slater, Helen
Catley, Mark
O’Sullivan, Peter
author_sort Schütze, Robert
collection PubMed
description Metacognitions, which are beliefs about our own thinking processes, can modulate worry and rumination and thereby influence emotional distress. This study aimed to develop a self-report measure of unhelpful pain-related metacognitions which might serve as a clinical and research tool to better understand pain catastrophizing, a significant risk factor for adverse pain outcomes. Two phases of validation are presented. Phase 1 reports on how the Pain Metacognitions Questionnaire (PMQ) was empirically developed through a qualitative study of 20 people with chronic back (n = 15) or knee (n = 5) pain in secondary or tertiary care and then validated in a large internet sample of people experiencing pain (N = 864). Rasch analysis yielded a 21-item scale with two dimensions (positive and negative metacognition) assessing how useful and problematic people believe rumination about pain to be, respectively. In Phase 2, further validation using a new sample (N = 510) replicated initial findings. Both PMQ subscales have good retest reliability (r = 0.76, r = 0.72) and internal consistency (0.86, 0.87). They correlate negatively with mindfulness and positively with pain intensity, disability, anxiety, depression, catastrophizing, rumination, and metacognition. The PMQ also predicts unique variance in catastrophizing when other variables are controlled and predicts ‘patient’ status for pain catastrophizing. Sensitivity analysis yielded preliminary suggestions for clinically meaningful cut-offs. Unhelpful pain metacognitions can be validly and reliably measured using a self-report instrument. Future studies using the PMQ might shed new light on pain-related thinking processes to develop better interventions for people prone to worry and rumination about their pain.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6497779
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-64977792019-05-10 Assessing Beliefs Underlying Rumination About Pain: Development and Validation of the Pain Metacognitions Questionnaire Schütze, Robert Rees, Clare Smith, Anne Slater, Helen Catley, Mark O’Sullivan, Peter Front Psychol Psychology Metacognitions, which are beliefs about our own thinking processes, can modulate worry and rumination and thereby influence emotional distress. This study aimed to develop a self-report measure of unhelpful pain-related metacognitions which might serve as a clinical and research tool to better understand pain catastrophizing, a significant risk factor for adverse pain outcomes. Two phases of validation are presented. Phase 1 reports on how the Pain Metacognitions Questionnaire (PMQ) was empirically developed through a qualitative study of 20 people with chronic back (n = 15) or knee (n = 5) pain in secondary or tertiary care and then validated in a large internet sample of people experiencing pain (N = 864). Rasch analysis yielded a 21-item scale with two dimensions (positive and negative metacognition) assessing how useful and problematic people believe rumination about pain to be, respectively. In Phase 2, further validation using a new sample (N = 510) replicated initial findings. Both PMQ subscales have good retest reliability (r = 0.76, r = 0.72) and internal consistency (0.86, 0.87). They correlate negatively with mindfulness and positively with pain intensity, disability, anxiety, depression, catastrophizing, rumination, and metacognition. The PMQ also predicts unique variance in catastrophizing when other variables are controlled and predicts ‘patient’ status for pain catastrophizing. Sensitivity analysis yielded preliminary suggestions for clinically meaningful cut-offs. Unhelpful pain metacognitions can be validly and reliably measured using a self-report instrument. Future studies using the PMQ might shed new light on pain-related thinking processes to develop better interventions for people prone to worry and rumination about their pain. Frontiers Media S.A. 2019-04-26 /pmc/articles/PMC6497779/ /pubmed/31080425 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00910 Text en Copyright © 2019 Schütze, Rees, Smith, Slater, Catley and O’Sullivan. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Psychology
Schütze, Robert
Rees, Clare
Smith, Anne
Slater, Helen
Catley, Mark
O’Sullivan, Peter
Assessing Beliefs Underlying Rumination About Pain: Development and Validation of the Pain Metacognitions Questionnaire
title Assessing Beliefs Underlying Rumination About Pain: Development and Validation of the Pain Metacognitions Questionnaire
title_full Assessing Beliefs Underlying Rumination About Pain: Development and Validation of the Pain Metacognitions Questionnaire
title_fullStr Assessing Beliefs Underlying Rumination About Pain: Development and Validation of the Pain Metacognitions Questionnaire
title_full_unstemmed Assessing Beliefs Underlying Rumination About Pain: Development and Validation of the Pain Metacognitions Questionnaire
title_short Assessing Beliefs Underlying Rumination About Pain: Development and Validation of the Pain Metacognitions Questionnaire
title_sort assessing beliefs underlying rumination about pain: development and validation of the pain metacognitions questionnaire
topic Psychology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6497779/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31080425
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00910
work_keys_str_mv AT schutzerobert assessingbeliefsunderlyingruminationaboutpaindevelopmentandvalidationofthepainmetacognitionsquestionnaire
AT reesclare assessingbeliefsunderlyingruminationaboutpaindevelopmentandvalidationofthepainmetacognitionsquestionnaire
AT smithanne assessingbeliefsunderlyingruminationaboutpaindevelopmentandvalidationofthepainmetacognitionsquestionnaire
AT slaterhelen assessingbeliefsunderlyingruminationaboutpaindevelopmentandvalidationofthepainmetacognitionsquestionnaire
AT catleymark assessingbeliefsunderlyingruminationaboutpaindevelopmentandvalidationofthepainmetacognitionsquestionnaire
AT osullivanpeter assessingbeliefsunderlyingruminationaboutpaindevelopmentandvalidationofthepainmetacognitionsquestionnaire