Depression determines illness conviction and pain impact: A structural equation modeling analysis

被引:18
|
作者
Davis, PJ
Reeves, JL
Hastie, BA
Graff-Radford, SB
Naliboff, BD
机构
[1] Alliant Univ, Fresno, CA USA
[2] Univ Calif Los Angeles, Sch Dent, Sect Oral Med & Orofacial Pain, Los Angeles, CA 90024 USA
[3] Cedars Sinai Med Ctr, Pain Ctr, Los Angeles, CA USA
[4] Behav Med Network, Los Angeles, CA USA
[5] Univ Calif Los Angeles, Dept Psychiat, Los Angeles, CA 90024 USA
[6] W Los Angeles VA Hlth Care Ctr, Los Angeles, CA USA
关键词
headache; orofacial pain; factor analysis; structural equation modeling; MMPI-2; MPI; BDI; VAS; depression;
D O I
10.1046/j.1526-4637.2000.00032.x
中图分类号
R614 [麻醉学];
学科分类号
100217 ;
摘要
Objective. The present study sought to derive an algorithm using factor analysis and structural equation modeling (SEM) to describe headache and orofacial pain patients using measures of behavioral and psychological functioning. This investigation further examined whether the underlying factor structure differed in 3 presumed distinct diagnostic categories: myofascial, neuropathic, and neurovascular pain. Design. The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 ((MMPI-2), Multidimensional Pain Inventory (MPI), Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II), and visual analog scale for functional limitation (VAS-FL) were administered to the subjects. A split group design was used. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used to describe distinct factor domains in the first group. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using SEM tested this structure in the second group and described causal relationships between the revealed (latent) factors. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences in demographic variables and diagnostic group factor structure. Setting. The Pain Center is a comprehensive, multidisciplinary pain medicine program at Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California. Subjects. Three hundred and ninety (N = 390) subjects were assigned to 1 of 3 diagnostic categories: myofascial pain syndrome, neuropathic pain, or neurovascular pain. Results. EFA revealed a 3-factor solution. The factors were labeled Depression, Illness Conviction, and Pain Impact, reflecting the content of their respective variables with highest loadings. CFA using SEM validated the 3-factor solution, and further revealed that Depression was a critical causal factor determining Illness Conviction and Pain Impact. No causal relationship was observed between Illness Conviction and Pain Impact. ANOVA found no differences in demographics. No difference in factor structure emerged for the 3 diagnostic categories. Conclusions. Analysis derived a 3-factor solution. The factors were Pain Impact, Illness Conviction, and Depression. SEM revealed the critical causal pathway showing that Depression determined Illness Conviction and Pain Impact. We conclude that the main target for pain treatment is depression. No differences in factor structure were found for the 3 diagnostic categories of myofascial, neuropathic, or neurovascular pain. This suggests that psychological processes are similar in chronic headache and orofacial pain patients despite their presumed distinct underlying pathophysiological mechanisms. SME is a powerful methodology to construct causal models that has been underutilized in the pain literature.
引用
收藏
页码:238 / 246
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Customer Loyalty in Marketplace: Structural Equation Modeling Analysis
    Wijaya, I. Gusti Ngurah Satria
    Triandini, Evi
    Kabnani, Ezra Tifanie Gabriela
    PROCEEDINGS OF ICORIS 2020: 2020 THE 2ND INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON CYBERNETICS AND INTELLIGENT SYSTEM (ICORIS), 2020, : 282 - 286
  • [42] Analysis of Multiple Biomarkers Using Structural Equation Modeling
    Cao, Wenhao
    Hecht, Stephen S.
    Murphy, Sharon E.
    Chu, Haitao
    Benowitz, Neal L.
    Donny, Eric C.
    Hatsukami, Dorothy K.
    Luo, Xianghua
    TOBACCO REGULATORY SCIENCE, 2020, 6 (04) : 266 - 278
  • [43] Structural equation modeling in applying for the crosscultural data analysis
    Little, TD
    Gordeeva, TO
    PSIKHOLOGICHESKII ZHURNAL, 1997, 18 (04) : 96 - +
  • [44] A Convex Formulation for Path Analysis in Structural Equation Modeling
    Pruttiakaravanich, Anupon
    Songsiri, Jitkomut
    2016 55TH ANNUAL CONFERENCE OF THE SOCIETY OF INSTRUMENT AND CONTROL ENGINEERS OF JAPAN (SICE), 2016, : 282 - 287
  • [45] Nature of nurture analysis via structural equation modeling
    Kim, Yongkang
    Balbona, Jared
    Keller, Matthew C.
    BEHAVIOR GENETICS, 2020, 50 (06) : 461 - 462
  • [46] Analysis of Operational Communication Through Structural Equation Modeling
    Drigo, Edmara
    Moya Rodriguez, Jorge Laureano
    Embirucu, Marcelo
    Avila Filho, Salvador
    IEEE ACCESS, 2020, 8 : 121705 - 121723
  • [47] A structural equation modeling analysis of marital bullying scale
    Arnout, Boshra A.
    Al-Qadinni, Fatma Y.
    JOURNAL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, 2020, 20 (03)
  • [48] Relation between body mass index and depression: a structural equation modeling approach
    Alina Dragan
    Noori Akhtar-Danesh
    BMC Medical Research Methodology, 7
  • [49] Relation between body mass index and depression: a structural equation modeling approach
    Dragan, Alina
    Akhtar-Danesh, Noori
    BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, 2007, 7 (1)
  • [50] The downsizing effects on survivors: a structural equation modeling analysis
    Marques, Tania
    Suarez-Gonzalez, Isabel
    da Cruz, Pedro Pinheiro
    Ferreira, Manuel Portugal
    MANAGEMENT RESEARCH-THE JOURNAL OF THE IBEROAMERICAN ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT, 2011, 9 (03) : 174 - 191