Cargando…

Validation of the Brazilian version of the child pain catastrophizing scale and its relationship with a marker of central sensitization

OBJECTIVES: The Pain Catastrophizing Scale-Child version (PCS-C) allows to identify children who are prone to catastrophic thinking. We aimed to adapt the Brazilian version of PCS-C (BPCS-C) to examine scale psychometric properties and factorial structure in children with and without chronic pain. A...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Schneider, Larissa, Castro, Stela Maris de Jezus, Mallman, Eliza Saggin, Evaldt, Cibelle de Abreu, Souza, Andressa, Rodrigues, Josy da Silva, Mendanha, Clarissa, Caumo, Wolnei, Stefani, Luciana Cadore
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9515684/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33932395
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bjane.2021.02.057
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVES: The Pain Catastrophizing Scale-Child version (PCS-C) allows to identify children who are prone to catastrophic thinking. We aimed to adapt the Brazilian version of PCS-C (BPCS-C) to examine scale psychometric properties and factorial structure in children with and without chronic pain. Also, we assessed its correlation with salivary levels of Brain-Derived Neurotrophic factor (BDNF). METHODS: The Brazilian version of PCS-C was modified to adjust it for 7–12 years old children. To assess psychometric properties, 100 children (44 with chronic pain from a tertiary hospital and 56 healthy children from a public school) answered the BPCS-C, the visual analogue pain scale, and questions about pain interference in daily activities. We also collected a salivary sample to measure BDNF. RESULTS: We observed good internal consistency (Cronbach’s value = 0.81). Parallel analysis retained 2 factors. Confirmatory factor analysis of our 2-factor model revealed consistent goodness-of-fit (IFI = 0.946) when compared to other models. There was no correlation between visual analogue pain scale and the total BPCS-C score; however, there was an association between pain catastrophizing and difficulty in doing physical activities in school (p = 0.01). BPCS-C total scores were not different between groups. We found a marginal association with BPCS-C (r = 0.27, p = 0.01) and salivary BDNF levels. DISCUSSION: BPCS-C is a valid instrument with consistent psychometric properties. The revised 2-dimension proposed can be used for this population. Children catastrophism is well correlated with physical limitation, but the absence of BPCS-C score differences between groups highlights the necessity of a better understanding about catastrophic thinking in children.