Search

Occupational and social rehabilitation can be influenced by perceived injustice that results from pain. Currently, the Injustice Experience Questionnaire (IEQ), the tool most commonly used to assess perceived injustice, is not available in German. The aim of this study was the validation of the German-language version of the IEQ.The validation of the IEQ was carried out via a web-based survey. For this purpose, participants completed the IEQ and construct-related scales analogous to the original study Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (TSK), Depression scale of the Depression Anxiety and Stress Scales (D-DASS), Pain Disability Index (PDI), and McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ). In addition, the participants completed questions on their socioeconomic status and on the cause of their pain, taken from the German Pain Questionnaire.Of 223 respondents, 134 (60.1%) returned a completed questionnaire and were included in the study. In all, 26.1% of participants reported suffering from pain resulting from accidents. None of the reviewed one- to three-factor solutions for the IEQ's structure achieved a good model fit. The best results were found for a two-factor solution, whereby the exploratory factor analysis revealed almost all items loaded highly on both factors and the confirmatory factor analysis showed high correlations between the factors. These findings are consistent with previous studies. The IEQ correlated highly and significantly with the other psychological instruments. There were no floor or ceiling effects. Cronbach's α for the German IEQ version was 0.93 and thus attests a high level of internal consistency.The analyses attest the excellent psychometric properties of the German translation of the IEQ and so the German-language version of the IEQ can be used as a validated questionnaire to screen for perceived injustice.

In 2009 the diagnosis chronic pain disorder with somatic and psychological factors (F45.41) was integrated into the German version of the International Classification of Diseases, version 10 (ICD-10-GM). In 2010 Paul Nilges and Winfried Rief published operationalization criteria for this diagnosis. In the present publication the ad hoc commission on multimodal interdisciplinary pain therapy of the German Pain Society now presents a formula for a clear validation of these operationalization criteria of the ICD code F45.41.

On behalf of the Medical/Psychological Pain Associations, Pain Patients Alliance and the Professional Association of Pain Physicians and Psychologists, the Joint Commission of Professional Societies and Organizations for Quality in Pain Medicine, working in close collaboration with the respective presidents, has developed verifiable structural and process-related criteria for the classification of medical and psychological pain treatment facilities in Germany. Based on the established system of graded care in Germany and on existing qualifications, these criteria also argue for the introduction of a basic qualification in pain medicine. In addition to the first-ever comprehensive description of psychological pain facilities, the criteria presented can be used to classify five different levels of pain facilities, from basic pain management facilities, to specialized institutions, to the Centre for Interdisciplinary Pain Medicine. The recommendations offer binding and verifiable criteria for quality assurance in pain medicine and improved pain treatment.

Pain perception is a complex experience that entails somatic and psychological factors. This is especially true for chronic pain where increasing chronicity leads to a growing significance of psychological factors such as learning and memory processes or cognitive evaluation at the expense of nociceptive processes. Hardly any other area of health-related research and health care has such an interdisciplinary organization of research, treatment, and education. Psychological pain research and psychological treatment of pain have become specializations in their own right. For the future of this research area, a differential analysis of the contribution of psychological factors to chronicity is important. For a mechanism-oriented treatment, the development of new treatment approaches and the analysis of specific subgroups for a better differential indication of treatments is needed.

The assessment of mental distress is a central aspect in pain research and treatment. Particularly for depression the comorbidity with pain poses methodological and conceptual challenges. This study examined the psychometric properties of the short version of the depression, anxiety and stress scale (DASS), used in both pain research and treatment and constructed to overcome the particular problems by omitting somatic items and concentrating on the psychological core aspects of depression, anxiety and stress.The psychometric properties of the DASS-21 were compared between patients with pain and various people without any pain problems (N = 950). The DASS has three subscales, depression, anxiety and stress, each with seven items. The construct validity of the DASS was examined using the hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS) for anxiety and depression and the general depression scale (Allgemeine Depressionsskala, ADS) for depression. The sensitivity and specificity for depression were determined against a structured interview for diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-IV) and compared with the Center for Epidemiological Studies depression scale (CESD) and HADS in pain patients.Cronbach's alpha of the DASS for the depression subscale was at least 0.91, while the anxiety and stress subscales had Cronbach alphas of 0.78-0.82 and 0.81-0.89, respectively. Although the depression subscale has only 7 items, it is just as reliable as the ADS with 21 items. It also has a better sensitivity and specificity than the HADS in identifying clinical patients with depression.The DASS is a reliable questionnaire, free to use and brief to administer; therefore, it is an alternative to the previously used instruments for the screening of depression. Furthermore, the subscale stress measures irritability and tension, which are important aspects of pain experience but underused in assessment procedures for the diagnosis and treatment evaluation of patients with pain.

In recent decades there has been much work on cognitive behavioral approaches to chronic pain. Now there is a considerable variety of concepts and interventions which share the same roots but differ in theoretical issues and application. Psychotherapeutic interventions are ideally embedded into an interdisciplinary setting and base on a bio-psycho-social perspective. Starting from a classical operant model we will describe the model of fear avoidance and the model of acceptance in the therapy of chronic pain. The latter have been influencing therapy and theory in recent years. The cognitive behavioral perspective on chronic pain has, therefore, not only become more differentiated and complex but also more complicated.

Besides the different forms of odontalgia, myalgias of the masticatory muscles are the most frequent noninfectious complaints in the orofacial region. After summarizing the recommendations set forth by the Interdisciplinary Working Group of Orofacial Pain within the German Chapter of the IASP (German Pain Society), we present the current state of knowledge regarding the etiology, diagnosis, and therapeutic options, based on an extensive literature search. A systematic literature search was carried out in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and the database of the Deutsche Zahnärztliche Zeitschrift. The results corroborate our previous recommendations that for the majority of patients pain reduction or pain relief can be achieved with noninvasive, reversible methods. Short- and long-term trials have added more evidence to the fact that different therapeutic measures have similar efficacy. In patients with chronic myalgias of the jaw muscles, involvement of a psychotherapist is crucial. Patient education, oral appliances, physiotherapeutic exercises, and acupuncture are recommended therapeutic measures, while physical therapy, pharmacotherapy, and psychological therapy received a limited recommendation.

In 2009, the German version of ICD-10 (ICD-10 GM version 2009) introduced the diagnosis of "chronic pain disorder with somatic and psychological factors", because current ICD-10 diagnoses did not address the biopsychosocial character of chronic pain adequately. For most patients, a dichotomous classification into psychologically versus biomedically caused pain is inappropriate and does not reflect current knowledge on pain. The new code F45.41 addresses the relevance of psychological factors for chronic pain persistence and chronic pain treatment, even in those conditions with a clear biomedical cause at the beginning. This guideline describes how to use this new diagnosis, which boundaries have to be considered, and how comorbid and associated conditions can be classified. The distinction of this new diagnosis from other pain-associated diagnoses and recommendations for the coding of comorbid conditions are presented. The differentiation of everyday pain symptoms from pain disorders is outlined. Finally, contextual factors of the classification process, as well as problems in integrating this new diagnosis into diagnosis-related group (DRG) systems of financial reimbursement are discussed.

Toothache prevalence in the overall population is considerable. However, for clinical purposes, the classification schemes available do not appear to be sufficiently sophisticated. Moreover, not all known forms of dental pain are considered. A refined classification that meets current standards is therefore introduced. To facilitate diagnosis, the characteristic features of the various types of odontalgia are summarized.The new classification differentiates among seven different origins of pain: 1. dentinal pain (originating from the pulpal tissues), 2. pulpal pain (originating from the pulpal tissues), 3. periodontal pain, 4. alveolar-osseous pain, 5. atypical odontalgia, 6. heterotopic dental pain, 7. odontalgia associated with primary psychosocial factors.In our opinion, the proposed classification differentiates among the different forms of odontalgia more precisely than all previous ones. However, its viability and advantages over other available classification schemes still need to be verified in daily practice.

Arthralgias of the temporomandibular joint occur rarely in their isolated form, in contrast to myalgias of the jaw muscles. Most often, arthralgias are combined with myofascial pain. Here we define relevant terms (arthralgia, arthropathy, arthritis, osteoarthritis/osteoarthrosis), describe special diagnostic aspects and provide diagnosis-related specifications. We then present current information on the clinical management of temporomandibular joint pain. A systematic literature search revealed that pain reduction or pain relief can be achieved with non-invasive reversible methods for the majority of patients. Results from short and long-term longitudinal studies show that different therapeutic methods are similarly effective. For the management of chronic forms with extensive psychosocial impairment a multidisciplinary approach is essential.

Myalgias of the masticatory muscles are the most frequent noninfectious complaints in the orofacial region. After summarizing the current knowledge on the physiology, etiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis, and differential diagnosis of masticatory muscle pain, we specifically focus on management recommendations. Results of an extensive literature search show that for the majority of patients pain reduction or pain relief can be achieved with noninvasive reversible methods. Longitudinal short- and long-term studies have revealed that different therapeutic measures are similarly effective. In patients with chronic masticatory myalgias associated with psychosocial impairment, however, additional involvement of a psychotherapist is crucial.

Up to now, only an English version of the Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire (CPAQ) has been available for measuring the acceptance of chronic pain. This paper presents and analyzes a German adaptation of this instrument.The German scale was tested on 150 patients at the DRK Pain Center in Mainz. Validity was assessed by means of various indicators of pain and psychosocial impairment. In a subgroup (n=50) the association with the heat pain threshold was determined.The factor structure of the German CPAQ scale is largely concordant with the theoretical model. The internal consistency of the total and subscales is 0.84-0.87 (Cronbach's alpha). The factors are closely related to indicators of psychosocial functioning. Associations with the affective dimension of pain are moderate and with the sensory dimension low. No association is found with heat pain thresholds (thermal sensory analyzer).The German CPAQ scale is a useful German-language instrument for the measurement of acceptance and shows good psychometric properties. The study confirms that acceptance is not an expression of a physiologically based indolence.

In 2000, the interdisciplinary Working Group of Orofacial Pain within the German Chapter of the IASP (German Association for the Study of Pain) published recommendations for the standardized evaluation and diagnostic classification of patients with painful masticatory muscles and/or temporomandibular joints. The purpose of the present study was to critically review and update these recommendations.Appraisal of the relevant literature published after the release of the recommendations (up to December 2005) shows that the two-axis approach for the assessment of the somatic and psychosocial parameters of the orofacial pain experience has found wide support. Single aspects of the recommendations have been substantiated by additional scientific evidence.The recommendations reflect the current state of pain medicine. Therefore, they should be considered among practitioners who diagnose and manage patients suffering from temporomandibular disorders.

Prescription and accessibility of opioids for patients with non-malignant pain has considerably increased in recent years, and with it the number of patients who, in addition, use psychotherapy. So far no study exists yet on the efficacy, the advantages and disadvantages, or the problem points of this combination of treatments. This issue is of particular importance for interdisciplinary pain management programs as, due to selection biases, they admit a high percentage of patients with psychological distress and simultaneous opioid medication. The questions discussed concern diagnostics, indication, contraindication, and prescription criteria. Patients under distress seem to benefit less from opioids. At the same time, side effects of the medication might influence the psychological interventions negatively (e. g. cognitions or activity). By means of a case report, an example of how the two treatment options can be sensibly combined is presented.

This paper reviews instruments in German language for the psychological assessment and classification of pain. Usually chronic pain syndromes are classified within the International Classification of Diseases (ICD). Instead of the psychiatric chapter of the ICD, it is possible to use the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). The proposed classification system of the International Association of the Study of Pain (IASP) is based on a multiaxial solution. The numerous ways to classify chronic pain include many problems and limits, especially in the case of an interdisciplinary assessment. They provide no specific system for classifying pain syndromes. They are impractical to handle and restrict classifying pain as either somatogenic or psychogenic. It is not possible to describe both sides in one diagnosis without loss of information. As a result of this situation, a task force of the German Chapter of the International Association for the Study of Pain developed a Multiaxial Classification of Pain (Multiaxiale Schmerzklassifikation; MASK) as an advanced system of pain assessment and an alternative to the common classification systems. MASK embraces a somatic (MASK-S) and a psychological (MASK-P) part. Both parts constitute an 'interdisciplinary diagnosis'. MASK-S enables classifying a pain syndrome using hierarchical levels, with progredient specific degrees of differentiation. In addition there are 6 axes to describe pain syndromes qualitatively and quantitatively (e.g. localization, quality). The psychosocial part (MASK-P) embraces 5 main levels (1. behavioral, 2. emotional, 3. cognitive, 4. stress-related, 5. habitual personal factors) and 2 additional levels (6. functional coherence, 7. ICD/DSM-diagnosis additional). The MASK-P part of the diagnosis is composed of graduation on these levels. Differential axis of the pain syndromes are described phenomenologically and specifically. MASK provides the possibility of establishing an integrative, interdisciplinary diagnosis.

Due to the considerable degree of variation that exists among care providers with respect to the assessment of patients suffering from painful temporomandibular disorders (TMDs), an interdisciplinary working group for the study of orofacial pain aimed at developing recommendations for the evaluation and diagnostic classification of such patients.Following an extensive literature search (computer-based search and handsearch), several working sessions were needed to develop a standardized diagnostic protocol. It was a prerequisite that recommended measures and instruments should have acceptable reliability and validity. Three independent reviewers - well-known experts in the pain field - critically reviewed the contents of our recommendations.A two-axis approach is recommended to assess the somatic and psychosocial parameters of the pain experience. Our concept closely follows the Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders. In addition, we distinguish a minimal, a standard, and an extended evaluation.The recommendations appear to be useful to enhance the diagnostic quality in the evaluation of patients with painful TMDs.

The significance of psychosocial factors (pain concepts, psychological distress eg. depression and anxiety, disability) in patients with temporomandibular pain is increasingly noticed. The major diagnostic domains as well as the appropriate diagnostic procedures are described. Management should be based on a model elaborated in cooperation with patients, as to the formation and maintenance of the pain condition. It should be individualized as much as possible. For the majority of patients, symptomatic treatment in combination with clear behavioral directions is sufficient. However, some studies show that improvement is more stable and faster in patients with combined treatment conditions (e.g.occlusal appliance, stress management, relaxation training) than in patients receiving only singular treatment.

The present paper is one in a series of publications reviewing German instruments for the psychological assessment of pain. Part X deals with pain measurement of acute and chronic pain in infants and children. German assessment instruments of pediatric pain together with frequently used instruments of American origin are examined and described. The survey contains self-report and behavioral pain measures. Multidimensional pain interviews for both children and parents, diaries and rating scales, as well as observation measures especially for infants, are examined. Since the selection of pain-assessment instruments is dependent on the age and cognitive level of the children, for each instrument a minimum age limit is given. In cases in which quantitative indices of reliability, validity and objectivity are still needed, the evaluation is based on qualitative quotations.

Four multidimensional inventories used as instruments for the assessment of pain are examined: "Fragebogen zur Erfassung der Schmerzverarbeitung' [Questionnaire for Assessment of Level of Coping with Pain], "Kieler Schmerzverarbeitungs-Inventar' [Kiel Inventory of Coping with Pain], "Fragebogen zur Schmerzregulation' [Questionnaire on Pain Regulation], and the German version of the "Multidimensional Pain Inventory'. None of these questionnaires assesses all domains that are important in chronic pain. The recommended standardized assessment routine for pain centres includes the use of a diary, the rating of actual, average and maximum pain intensity, the application of the PDI, a measure of disability, and the FESV, which records cognitive processing and coping. As measures of general psychological dysfunction the ADS for the assessment of depression and the B-L, a symptom checklist, are suggested as instruments suitable for routine use in diagnosis and evaluation.

Chronic pain is often associated with an array of general psychological dimensions such as depression, somatic symptoms, anxiety, anger and a loss of quality of life. Part VIII describes various instruments concerning each dimension and comments on their applicability within a diagnostic routine for chronic pain patients. TheAllgemeine Depressionsskala (German version of CES-D) is recommended for the assessment of depression, and theBeschwerden-Liste seems best for assessing somatic symptoms. Trait-anxiety and pain-unrelated state-anxiety seem not to be suitable because they lack significance for the therapy process. While the inventory for assessing anger still needs an empirical basis for chronic pain patients, quality of life inventories are not recommended for routine pain assessment.

Disability is a central aspect in the assessment of chronic pain patients. Disability questionnaires in German (developed or adapted) are examined and selected for different purposes. The "Funktionsfragebogen Hannover" and the "Pain Disability Index" are recommended for both research and clinicalapplication while the "Sickness Impact Profile" is suitable only for research purposes.Four different German questionnaires for the assessment of social interaction and communication in pain patients and their significant others are examined in part VII. There are some empirical data for three of them. Only the "Inventory of Familial Adaptability and Cohesion" has achieved a certain degree of empirical maturity. Further research and developmental activity in this area of pain assessment are urgently needed.

The present paper is one of a series of publications, reviewing German instruments for psychological assessment of pain. Their main focus is on the results of a task force on quality testing for each subject. This paper describes and comments on methods regarding self-reporting of pain cognitions and both cognitive and behavioral strategies for coping with pain. Concerning pain cognitions one focus is on patients' attributions of causes of pain and the modes of controlling pain (subjective pain model). The other focus is on instruments recording "pain beliefs" in the sense of dysfunctional congitions associated with the experience of pain. Each instrument was examined with reference to approved psychometric criteria, empirical foundation and clinical relevance. It was noted that several instruments are deficient in their psychometric criteria and their empirical foundations. We used these data as a basis to elaborate a specific and differential recommendation. A similar procedure was followed with instruments for the assessment of pain-related coping strategies. According to our research there are two subgroups of coping instruments, one more specifically for cognitive coping with pain, and the other combined with behavioral coping strategies. Once again, we elaborated a specific and differential recommendation, giving priority to instruments taking account of both cognitive and behavioral dimensions of coping with pain.

The series of publications is continued in which the results of a review of German pain-related psychological assessment tools are presented. The taskforce of the German Society for the Study of Pain (DGSS) describes and examines instruments assessing the qualitative aspects of how pain is experienced (part II). Part III describes and comments on methods regarding self-reporting and observation of pain behaviour. Part IV discusses the use of pain diaries and introduces different forms of diaries, focussing on the measurement of pain intensity.

This is the first in a series of publications presenting the results of a taskforce on quality assurance in psychological assessment of chronic pain. The initiative was motivated by the increasing and confusing variety of newly developed German instruments and/or translations of Anglo-American instruments. Our main work was therefore concentrated on the collection of existing German assessment instruments, on summarizing the essentials in a documentary sheet, and on examining their objectivity, reliability, validity, clinical relevance, economy and degree of empirical foundation. For each diagnostic domain we thus elaborated specific differential recommendations for those working in psychological pain research and clinical practice, in an attempt to devise criteria enabling them to choose the optimal instrument or test battery for their needs and conditions.

A multidisciplinary approach, acknowledged as being the best treatment strategy for a wide range of chronic pain patients, requires cooperation at least between trained professionals in the medical and the psychological disciplines. Psychological criteria are formulated to bridge persisting gaps in the interdisciplinary implementation of pain treatment strategies.

Despite its importance for chronic pain diseases, pain-related disability is a poorly defined concept with theoretical deficits. The distinction between impairment, disability, and handicap proposed by the WHO is an important contribution to clarification of the disability construct. With reference to four criteria (underlying disability construct, degree of behaviour generalization, assessment mode, scope) different assessment procedures of pain-related disability are presented and the advantages and disadvantages of each are discussed. A multidimensional approach to pain-related disability is advocated. Diagnostic information yielded by different assessment procedures should be viewed as complementary rather than as exclusive data sources. A German version of a self-report instrument (Pain Disability Index) that assesses disability in chronic pain patients is presented. The results from four data sets concerning different aspects of reliability and validity confirm the good psychometric properties of the instrument. The instrument can be used in chronic pain research as well as in clinical contexts. It is recommended that subjective disability data be complemented by behavioral observation and additional data sources (e.g. assessment of disability by the spouse/partner).