Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorHendrickson, Rick, 1956-
dc.creatorHendrickson, Ricken_US
dc.date.accessioned2011-10-31T18:20:31Z
dc.date.available2011-10-31T18:20:31Z
dc.date.issued1994en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10150/186811
dc.description.abstractThe SCL-90-R profiles of 83 intractable pain patients attending a southwestern university-affiliated medical center were analyzed with a clustering procedure. As hypothesized, this analysis resulted in three cluster groups: one cluster did not show any elevations on the clinical scales, a second cluster displayed high scores on the somatization and depression scales, while the third cluster endorsed elevations on the majority of the clinical scales. Contrary to the hypothesized prediction, there was no difference between the cluster groups and the three treatment outcome groups, although the lack of significant findings may be secondary to a weak treatment effect. There was also no difference between the cluster groups and the three pain etiology groups composed of neurogenic, musculoskeletal or both neurogenic and musculoskeletal patients. A discriminant function analysis performed on other psychological variables including global severity, somatic anxiety, somatic depression, cognitive anxiety, cognitive depression, coping style, depression, and pain intensity as predictors of membership in the treatment outcome groups was not statistically significant, although this procedure correctly classified patients at a rate substantially higher than chance. On the majority of the above psychological variables, patients with the best treatment outcome showed lower levels of distress, while patients in the poor outcome group displayed higher degrees of distress. A similar discriminant function analysis with the eight psychological variables as predictors of the three pain etiology groups also provided no statistically significant results. Finally, among several demographic and clinical variables only the length of illness and number of medications utilized significantly discriminated the three outcome groups. The implications of this study and suggestions for future studies in the pain management field are provided.
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherThe University of Arizona.en_US
dc.rightsCopyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.en_US
dc.titleChronic pain and outcome in a pain clinic population: The relationship between etiology and psychological functioning.en_US
dc.typetexten_US
dc.typeDissertation-Reproduction (electronic)en_US
dc.contributor.chairKaszniak, Alfred W.en_US
thesis.degree.grantorUniversity of Arizonaen_US
thesis.degree.leveldoctoralen_US
dc.contributor.committeememberBootzin, Richarden_US
dc.contributor.committeememberDomino, Georgeen_US
dc.contributor.committeememberGlisky, Elizabethen_US
dc.contributor.committeememberAllen, John J.B.en_US
dc.identifier.proquest9502613en_US
thesis.degree.disciplinePsychologyen_US
thesis.degree.disciplineGraduate Collegeen_US
thesis.degree.namePh.D.en_US
refterms.dateFOA2018-06-05T21:20:19Z
html.description.abstractThe SCL-90-R profiles of 83 intractable pain patients attending a southwestern university-affiliated medical center were analyzed with a clustering procedure. As hypothesized, this analysis resulted in three cluster groups: one cluster did not show any elevations on the clinical scales, a second cluster displayed high scores on the somatization and depression scales, while the third cluster endorsed elevations on the majority of the clinical scales. Contrary to the hypothesized prediction, there was no difference between the cluster groups and the three treatment outcome groups, although the lack of significant findings may be secondary to a weak treatment effect. There was also no difference between the cluster groups and the three pain etiology groups composed of neurogenic, musculoskeletal or both neurogenic and musculoskeletal patients. A discriminant function analysis performed on other psychological variables including global severity, somatic anxiety, somatic depression, cognitive anxiety, cognitive depression, coping style, depression, and pain intensity as predictors of membership in the treatment outcome groups was not statistically significant, although this procedure correctly classified patients at a rate substantially higher than chance. On the majority of the above psychological variables, patients with the best treatment outcome showed lower levels of distress, while patients in the poor outcome group displayed higher degrees of distress. A similar discriminant function analysis with the eight psychological variables as predictors of the three pain etiology groups also provided no statistically significant results. Finally, among several demographic and clinical variables only the length of illness and number of medications utilized significantly discriminated the three outcome groups. The implications of this study and suggestions for future studies in the pain management field are provided.


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
azu_td_9502613_sip1_m.pdf
Size:
2.994Mb
Format:
PDF
Description:
azu_td_9502613_sip1_m.pdf

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record