Skip to content

Advertisement

You're viewing the new version of our site. Please leave us feedback.

Learn more

BMC Psychology

Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Illness beliefs among patients with chronic widespread pain - associations with self-reported health status, anxiety and depressive symptoms and impact of pain

BMC PsychologyBMC series – open, inclusive and trusted20175:24

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-017-0192-1

Received: 21 February 2017

Accepted: 20 June 2017

Published: 5 July 2017

Abstract

Background

Chronic widespread pain (CWP) is a disabling condition associated with a decrease in health. Illness beliefs are individual and are acquired during life. Constraining beliefs may prevent patients from regaining health. Understanding these patients’ illness beliefs may be a way to improve the health care they are offered. The aim of this study was to describe illness beliefs among patients with CWP and associations with self-reported health, anxiety and depressive symptoms, and impact of pain.

Method

In this cross-sectional study, questionnaires were sent by mail to 330 patients including socio-demographic information, the Illness Perception Questionnaire (IPQ-R), the Short-Form General Health Survey (SF-36) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Data were analysed using descriptive statistics, non-parametric tests and linear regression analyses.

Results

Patients experienced and related a high number of symptoms to CWP (mean (SD) 9 (3)). The patients believed their illness to be long lasting, to affect their emotional well being, and to have negative consequences for their lives. Some 72% reported having severe or very severe pain, and impact of pain according to SF-36 was negatively correlated to several illness beliefs dimensions, anxiety- and depressive symptoms. In regression analyses, the Identity, Consequences and Personal control dimensions of IPQ-R and Anxiety- and Depressive symptoms explained 32.6–56.1% of the variance in the two component scores of SF-36.

Conclusion

Constraining illness beliefs in patients with CWP are related to worse health status, especially in cases of high number of physical or mental symptoms, beliefs of negative consequences or the illness affecting them emotionally. Identification and understanding of these beliefs may reduce patients’ suffering if they are taken into consideration in rehabilitation programs and in development of new evidence-based interventions aimed at increasing health in patients with CWP.

Keywords

Illness beliefsChronic widespread painSelf-rated healthQuestionnairesAnxiety and depression

Background

Chronic widespread pain (CWP) is a relatively common syndrome. Estimates for CWP prevalence were between 10 and 15% in the general population with twice as high prevalence in women than in men and higher prevalence among those aged over 40 [1, 2]. CWP is defined by The American College of Rheumatology [3] as pain in the axial skeleton, above and below the waist and on the left and right side of the body lasting more than 3 months. A more stringent definition, the “Manchester definition”, was developed by MacFarlane et al. [4] additionally requiring pain to be present in at least two of four sections of contralateral limbs.

“Illness beliefs” are individual and are acquired during life and during the course of an illness [5]. According to Wright, beliefs as a concept capture patients’ and health care providers’ efforts to make sense of an illness. Facilitating beliefs are beliefs that increase the possibilities of finding alternative solutions to manage an illness and hence soften illness suffering. Constraining beliefs are beliefs about the illness that can restrict options, maintain the problems and enhance illness suffering [5]. Beliefs have been implied to play an important role in living with illness since they can be determinants of patients’ health behaviour in managing illness [6, 7]. Previous research has shown that beliefs such as catastrophizing (constraining) and self-efficacy (facilitating) affect health in patients with CWP [810]. According to Wright et al. [5] other words such as ‘perception’, ‘cognitive representation’ and ‘explanation’ can be used synonymously with beliefs, but the term ‘belief’ is preferred as it best captures the individuals’ efforts to make sense of their illness.

Weinman et al. developed the Illness Perception Questionnaire – Revised (IPQ-R) [11, 12] in order to assess illness perceptions/beliefs based on a theoretical construction of perceptions/beliefs about illness and their impact on health behaviour [13]. As an example, Snelgrove et al. [14] described chronic pain patients viewing their pain as a biomechanical flaw, their physical body became the only focal point in managing the illness, which contributed to a limited effect of treatment.

Patients with fibromyalgia – a subcategory of CWP [3] – had difficulties in understanding their illness, had little personal control, low expectations of effective treatment and expected their illness to have a chronic course with serious consequences [10, 15]. Glattacker et al. [16] showed that beliefs of fewer consequences and fewer attributed symptoms led to better rehabilitation outcome. De Rooij et al. [17] saw improvement in negative beliefs to be a key agent of effect in multimodal treatment of patients with CWP.

Other factors which can influence and be influenced by illness beliefs are mood disorders and self-reported health status. Self-reported health status is the patients´ own perception and evaluation of health, a concept which is relevant in studying the consequences of disease and treatment [18]. Patients with CWP appear to have reduced self-reported health status [19] and studies of patients with chronic pain report a high prevalence of mood disorders ranging up to 80% [20, 21]. In order to reduce suffering, different alterable determinants of health status and mood disorders need to be identified and one of them may be the patients’ illness beliefs.

Thus, CWP is a disabling condition that impairs health status and is associated with a high economic and social burden for both the patients and the health care system, which illustrates the necessity of further knowledge. Swedish guidelines [22, 23] reflect the requirement for bio-psychosocial approaches to rehabilitation for musculoskeletal pain; therefore, understanding of patients’ illness beliefs and associated factors may be a way to improve care.

It was hypothesized that more constraining illness beliefs among patients with CWP are associated with decreased health status, but also taking anxiety- and depressive symptoms and impact of pain into account. Previous studies have not examined these dimensions simultaneously [8, 1921, 24]. Hence, the aim of this study was to describe illness beliefs among patients with CWP. A further aim was to analyze associations between illness beliefs, anxiety- and depressive symptoms, impact of pain and mental- and physical health status.

Methods

Design

The design of the study was cross-sectional, and it included postal questionnaires. Power analysis gave an estimate of 128 respondents being sufficient for statistical analysis. Only reported data were included in analyses and missing data were not accounted for. Number of patients with CWP who reported data regarding all questionnaires is shown in Tables 15.
Table 1

Socio-demographic and clinical characteristics of patients with CWP (n = 152).

Gender n (%)

 

 Women

138 (91)

 Men

14 (9)

Age (Yrs)

 

 Mean (SD)

46.3 (14)

 Median (range)

46 (19–80)

Family situation n (%)

 Single

26 (17)

 Single with children

14 (9)

 Living with parents and siblings

4 (3)

 Living with other adult with children

55 (36)

 Living with other adult without children

53 (35)

Country of birth n (%)

 Sweden

134 (88)

 European country excl. Sweden

13 (9)

 Rest of the world

5 (3)

Education n(%)

 Low

24 (16)

 Intermediate

91 (60)

 High

23 (15)

 Other

14 (9)

Work status n (%)

 Employed full time

28 (18)

 Employed part time

9 (6)

 Unemployed

22 (15)

 Student

11 (17)

 Sick leave

45 (30)

 Disability pension

23 (15)

 Retired

14 (9)

Occupational groups n (%)

 Administration and management

14 (9)

 Health care, social care and commercial

52 (34)

 Production and transport

19 (13)

 Occupation requiring high or advanced education

16 (11)

 Not specified

51 (34)

SF-36 Self-reported health, Mean (SD)

 BP bodily pain (n = 151)

24 (15)

 PCS physical component score (n = 148)

28 (8)

 MCS mental component score (n = 148)

36 (13)

Health transition (n = 151) n (%)

 Much better

5 (3)

 Slightly better

12 (8)

 The same

44 (29)

 Slightly worse

49 (33)

 Much worse

41 (27)

Form of pain (n = 143) n (%)

 Periodical

18 (13)

 Persisting

125 (87)

Pain duration (n = 144) (Yrs)

 Mean (SD)

16 (11)

 Median (range)

13 (2–49)

Pain according to Manchester definition n (%)

114 (75)

HADS Anxiety symptoms (n = 149) n (%)

 Cases

49 (33)

HADS Depressive symptoms (n = 148)

 Cases

48 (32)

Participants

Patients were consecutively recruited from a pain and rehabilitation centre at a university hospital in the middle of Sweden during January 2011 to June 2013. Pain drawings and medical records were reviewed for inclusion criteria which were: to be at least 18 years of age, understand Swedish, and have CWP according to the Manchester definition [4] which requires pain to be present in the axial skeleton above and below the waist, in at least two sections of a limb in two contra lateral limbs. Medical records were reviewed for those patients whose pain drawing met the Manchester definition criteria. Eligible patients who met the basic inclusion criteria were 330 patients with CWP.

Procedure

Data collection was made through patients answering questionnaires. An information letter was sent to the patients about the forthcoming study and 1 week later a letter indicating the purpose of the study, accompanied by the questionnaires sent to them by mail.

Ethical considerations

The study was approved by the regional Ethics committee in Stockholm (2011/1384–31/3) and approval was obtained from the management of the pain and rehabilitation centre. The participants consented to participation in the study by returning the questionnaires.

Socio-demographic- and pain characteristics

Information on age, gender, family situation, country of birth, education, work status, occupational group, spread of pain in the body, pain duration and form of pain (periodical/persisting) were self-reported background data. Spread of pain was indicated using a table with 18 boxes each for the left and right sides of the body. The patients marked the parts of the body where pain was present, to confirm the presence of pain according to the Manchester definition.

Self-report measures

Illness beliefs were measured using the Swedish version of Illness Perception Questionnaire - revised (IPQ-R) [12, 25, 26]. The questionnaire includes an illness identity dimension, seven cognitive dimensions and a causal dimension. The first part measuring the illness Identity consists of a list of 14 symptoms. Patients rate whether they have experienced the symptom since their illness (yes/no) and whether the symptom is related to their illness (yes/no). The sum of the answers rated as ‘yes’ on the second question for each symptom forms the illness identity scale. A high sum indicates a stronger belief that the symptom is a part of the patients’ illness. The second part, exploring seven cognitive dimensions, consists of 38 items about beliefs concerning an acute/chronic Timeline, a cyclical Timeline, perceived Consequences of the illness and beliefs about Personal control, Treatment control, Illness coherence and Emotional representations (further described in Table 4). The third part, the Causal domain, consists of 18 items concerning causes of illness. This domain can be divided into four groups; psychological attributions (six items), risk attributions (seven items), immune attributions (three items) and chance attributions (two items) [12]. All 38 items of the IPQ-R are rated on a Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5. Additionally, at the end of the IPQ-R, patients are asked to write down in their own words the three most important causes of their illness, and are allowed to list causes not provided in the closed-ended list. The IPQ-R is a reliable and well-validated self-report questionnaire [12, 15, 27, 28].

The Short-Form General Health Survey (SF-36; Swedish version) was used to assess the patients self-reported health status [2931]. The SF-36 is a questionnaire which includes 36 items covering eight domains: physical functioning (PF), role of limitation due to physical health problems (RP), bodily pain (BP), general health (GH), vitality (VT), social functioning (SF), role of limitations due to emotional problems (RE) and mental health (MH) which are summarized into separate physical component (PCS: PF, RP, BP, GH) and mental component (MCS: VT, SF, RE, MH) summary scores. A further single item concerns health transition over the past year. The physical component summary score measures patients’ abilities to perform simple everyday tasks and how much their pain and health in general interfere with their ability to work or perform other life roles. PCS also measures the extent of bodily pain experienced, a dimension consisting of two items, level of and impact of pain during the last 4 weeks (BP). The mental component measures the extent to which patients’ emotional state interferes with their ability to perform daily tasks and to socialize, and their level of psychological wellbeing. Higher scores on the SF-36 represent less affected health status. The Swedish version has been validated in a Swedish normative population [29]. The SF-36 data of the patients with CWP were compared with Swedish reference population data [32].

Anxiety and depressive symptoms was measured with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) [33], a questionnaire for assessing the presence and severity of anxiety and depressive symptoms in non-psychiatric settings. Two subscales, each containing seven items on a four-point Likert scale (ranging from 0 to 3) are summed separately to yield scores for anxiety and depression. The two subscales range from 0 to 21, higher scores indicating a greater likelihood of anxiety or depressive symptoms. A cut-off point of 11 was chosen for HADS to indicate a definite case. A study in a large Swedish population showed good psychometric properties [34].

Data analysis

All data were analysed using SPSS 22.0. Descriptive statistics were used to present socio-demographic and clinical characteristics. For categorical variables, frequencies and percentages were calculated and means and SDs for continuous variables. In general data was summarized by using mean and SD and associations were examined with non-parametric tests. These methods were chosen since the data is on ordinal level and the present approach is also supported by comparing results from parametric tests and no important differences were detected. For comparisons of groups of patients with or without anxiety and depressive symptoms and the dimensions of beliefs measured by IPQ-R, a Mann Whitney U test was used for the ordinal data. For the purpose of examining correlations between dimensions of illness beliefs, anxiety and depressive symptoms, self-reported health status including PCS, MCS and bodily pain (BP), a Spearman correlation test was used [35]. To label the degree of the rank correlations, 0.2 was regarded as small, 0.5 as moderate and 0.8 as large [36]. The Summary Independent-Samples T Test was used for comparing SF-36 data with Swedish reference population. A probability value less than or equal to 0.05 was considered statistically significant. In the regression analyses, all significant correlations from the univariate correlation analyses were accounted for with all dimensions of illness beliefs, anxiety- and depressive symptoms as predictors. Two stepwise linear regression analyses were performed to predict PCS and MCS of SF-36 respectively.

Results

Socio-demographic- and clinical characteristics

Of 330 contacted patients, 152 responded (46%). The non-respondents had a mean age of 42.5 years (significantly younger than respondents, p 0.005) and 85% were women. Table 1 presents the socio- demographic and clinical data of the patients who had a mean age of 46.3 years (SD 13.6, range 19–80) and 91% were women. The two largest groups of patients were either on sick leave (30%) or working (24%), whereof 6% were working part time. The vast majority of the patients had either an occupation in service, care and commercial work (34%) or had not specified their occupation (34%) [37]. The vast majority of the patients had education from upper secondary level (59%). Most of the patients were of Swedish origin (88%). Housing was shared for 83% of the patients and 17% lived alone. Pain was persistent for 87% and periodical for 13% of the patients. The median for pain duration was 13 years (range 2–49). At the time of answering the questionnaire 75% of the patients reported pain according to the Manchester definition.

Illness beliefs

In the first domain, the illness Identity domain, patients reported experiencing a mean of nine different symptoms (SD 3.0). Of the symptoms experienced, a mean of eight symptoms (SD 3.3) were perceived to be related to CWP. Of the symptoms experienced, pain, fatigue, loss of strength, stiff joints and sleep difficulties were the most common and these symptoms were frequently related to CWP. Nine of the 145 patients (6%) who experienced pain and 12 of the 139 (9%) who experienced fatigue did not relate these symptoms to CWP (Table 2).
Table 2

Illness Identity dimension of IPQ-R: 14 commonly experienced symptoms in patients with CWP (n = 152)

Symptoms

Experienced, N (%)a

Related to CWP, N (%)a

Pain

145 (100)

136/145 (94)

Fatigue

139 (97)

127/139 (91)

Loss of strength

136 (98)

131/136 (96)

Stiff joints

131 (92)

121/131 (92)

Sleep difficulties

126 (91)

118/126 (94)

Dizziness

98 (73)

82/98 (84)

Headaches

97 (71)

85/97 (88)

Upset stomach

89 (65)

71/89 (80)

Breathlessness

70 (52)

52/70 (74)

Nausea

65 (50)

48/65 (74)

Wheeziness

63 (47)

43/63 (68)

Sore throat

34 (27)

9/34 (26)

Weight loss

25 (19)

18/25 (72)

Sore eyes

23 (15)

18/23 (78)

a% of those who experienced the symptom

The Identity dimension and the second domain with the seven cognitive dimensions of IPQ-R are shown in Table 3. The three highest scored dimensions were Timeline acute/chronic, Consequences and Emotional representations.
Table 3

IPQ-R dimensions in patients with CWP (n = 152)

 

Mean (SD), range

Possible range

Identity, n = 95

8.0 (2.5), 0–14

0–14

Timeline acute/chronic, n = 143

26.6 (3.7), 14–30

6–30

Timeline cyclic, n = 149

14.0 (3.7), 4–20

4–20

Consequences, n = 145

21.6 (4.4), 8–30

6–30

Personal control, n = 141

17.7 (4.0), 8–30

6–30

Treatment control, n = 145

14.1 (3.4), 5–25

5–25

Illness coherence, n = 144

17.6 (5.3), 5–25

5–25

Emotional representation, n = 145

18.7 (5.3), 6–30

6–30

Subscale

High score for the dimension indicates a belief…

Identity

that the symptoms are part of the illness

Timeline acute/chronic

that the illness is permanent rather than temporary

Timeline cyclical

that the illness is cyclical in nature

Consequences

that the illness has negative consequences

Personal control

of good personal control over symptoms

Treatment control

that the illness is amenable to treatment

Illness coherence

of personal understanding of the illness

Emotional representation

that the illness will affect the emotional well being

In the third domain, the Causal domain, psychological factors (e.g. stress, worry, overwork, emotional state) and risk factors (e.g. heredity, poor medical care, own behaviour) were the attributions with which most of the patients agreed/strongly agreed. In the part where patients could write down their own beliefs about the most important causes of their illness they indicated mainly psychological factors such as stressful events in life, work-related stress and risk factors such as heredity and accidents related to work and traffic.

Health status, anxiety and depressive symptoms and impact of pain

Health status, anxiety and depressive symptoms and impact of pain in patients with CWP are presented in Table 1. The PCS score in SF-36 had a mean (SD) of 28 (8) and the MCS score mean (SD) was 36 (13). In the item concerning health transition during the past year (Item 2, SF-36), 11% reported that their health was better, 29% reported their health was the same, 33% that their health was slightly worse and 27% that their health was much worse. The health status in patients with CWP was significantly (p < 0.001) worse than in a reference population in all dimensions [32]. About a third of the patients rated themselves as having anxiety (33%) and depressive (32%) symptoms according to the two subscales of HADS (Table 1). Regarding the impact of pain, (from item 7 and 8 in SF-36), where the patients could indicate how much pain they had experienced during the last 4 weeks, 72% reported having severe or very severe pain, and 27% reported that the pain interfered extremely with their normal work (Table 1).

Associations between patients’ illness beliefs, health-status, anxiety and depressive symptoms, and impact of pain

We found several significant small to moderate correlations among the dimensions studied (Table 4). Patients who reported more symptoms related to their illness (Identity) and believed their illness to have negative Consequences rated PCS and MCS low and reported more impact of pain. The more the patients believed having Personal control over their illness and that their illness was amenable to treatment (Treatment control), the higher they rated PCS and the lower the impact of pain reported. The more the patients believed the illness would affect their emotional well-being (Emotional representation) and the more anxiety and depressive symptoms they experienced, the lower they rated MCS and the higher the impact of pain reported (Table 4).
Table 4

Correlationsa between dimensions of IPQ-Rb, HADSc and SF-36d in patients with CWP (n = 152)

IPQ-R dimensions

 

PCS

MCS

BPe

Identity

n = 95

−.278*

−.370**

−.410**

Timeline acute/chronic

n = 143

−.126

−.120

−.130

Timeline cyclic

n = 149

.108

−.052

.064

Consequences

n = 145

−.360**

−.484**

−.473**

Personal control

n = 141

.299**

.129

.234**

Treatment control

n = 145

.216*

.097

.165*

Illness coherence

n = 144

.072

.044

.108

Emotional representation

n = 145

−.036

−.570**

−.244**

Anxiety symptoms

n = 149

.126

−.729**

−.231**

Depressive symptoms

n = 148

−.047

−.788**

−.374**

aSpearman’s Rank Order Correlation

bIPQ-R, Illness Perception Questionnaire-Revised

cHADS, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale

dSF-36, Short-Form General Health Survey; MCS, Mental Component Summary  score; PCS, Physical Component Summary  score; BP, Bodily Pain

eBodily Pain is a dimension of PCS

*p < 0.05

**p < 0.01

Relating a high number of symptoms to their illness (Identity) was significantly associated with the presence of anxiety (p < 0.001) and depressive symptoms (p < 0.045). Furthermore, believing that the illness would have negative Consequences on their lives and that it would affect them emotionally (Emotional representation) were significantly associated with the presence of anxiety and depression (p < 0.001).

In regression analyses the Identity, Consequences and Personal control dimensions explained 32.6% of the variance in PCS (F = 4.368; p = 0.040). Thus Consequences dimension and Anxiety and Depressive symptoms explained 56.1% of the variance in MCS (F = 5.248; p = 0.025) (Table 5).
Table 5

Summary of stepwise multiple regression analyses for the prediction of SF-36 (PCS and MCS) by the illness beliefs dimensionsa and anxiety and depressive symptomsb

Significant predictors

B

CI 95%

p

Physical Health*

Constant

33.706

22.197–45.215

0.000

Identity

−0.833

−1.627 - -0.040

0.040

Personal control

0.663

0.286–1.040

0.001

Consequences

−0.487

−0.924 - -0.051

0.029

Mental Health**

Constant

55.867

45.223–66.512

0.000

Consequences

−0.619

−1.157 - -0.081

0.025

Depressive symptoms

−11.143

−16.280 - -6.005

0.000

Anxiety symptoms

−10.366

−15.232 - -5.501

0.000

*ΔR2 = 0.326 **ΔR2 = 0.561

F = 4.368 F = 5.248

p = 0.040* p = 0.025*

n = 78 n = 81

aIPQ-R

bHADS

Discussions and conclusions

The aim of the present study was to describe illness beliefs among patients with CWP and their association with self-reported health, anxiety and depressive symptoms and impact of pain. The majority of patients in this study were women (91%), which is consistent with characteristics of populations with CWP [1, 38]. At inclusion, all patients reported pain through pain drawings in their medical records according to the Manchester definition, but during analysis of self-reported pain in the protocol 25% no longer fulfilled this definition and 13% indicated having periodic pain. This may be due to the fluctuation of symptoms, indicating that CWP is not necessarily a constant state [39].

On a public social level, pain influences productivity, as shown in a Swedish population study where chronic pain in age groups below the age of 65 was strongly associated with a lower prevalence of working [1]. In the present study, 24% of the patients with CWP were working compared with 57% in a study of patients with fibromyalgia [10]. This might have been because the patients in the present study had longer illness duration.

In the Identity domain of IPQ-R, all symptoms were endorsed by at least 15% of the patients, confirming the validity of the symptoms included in the domain. A mean of eight out of 14 symptoms was endorsed by the patients as being related to their illness. Pain, fatigue, loss of strength, stiff joints and sleep difficulties were related to CWP by over 90% of the patients, which is consistent with other studies [10, 15, 16]. Nine of the patients who reported having pain did not relate it to their illness, perhaps experiencing pain of another origin than CWP. Furthermore, patients who had recently become ill might not yet relate pain symptoms to the diagnosis of CWP.

The Timeline acute/chronic, the Consequences and Emotional representations were the three highest rated dimensions of illness beliefs. These findings are not surprising since CWP is a chronic condition, which has reached a permanent level for those who have had the illness a long time i.e. a reported mean time of 16 years. Furthermore, during the course of having CWP for a long period of time, the patients may have experienced disabling consequences and learned that the illness affects their emotional well being. The description of high scores in the original IPQ-R version does not provide a cut-off point. In comparison with other patient groups [25, 40, 41] CWP patients had stronger beliefs of their illness to be chronic and permanent and their pain as having more serious Consequences on their life. Furthermore they had less sense of Personal- and Treatment control. On the Emotional representation scale, patients with CWP reported similar emotional impact of their illness as patients with cancer. Further studies could explore why CWP patients experience low Personal- and Treatment control, and the fact that they believe to the same extent as patients with potentially mortal conditions that their illness will have negative Consequences for their well-being. The severity of the illness CWP, from the perspective of patients, is notable.

Psychological causes, including experiences of stress and work-related stress, were the most reported Causes of the patients’ CWP. There are conflicting results in studies showing psychosocial aspects in addition to chance and biological causes as the most prominent causes [10, 15, 42]. The psychosocial aspects might reflect patterns in society where people have been found to be unable to handle difficulties in an increasingly complex and stressful life and where life problems are somaticized and medicalized [43]. Thus, interventions supporting patients managing the complexity of living with CWP could be essential.

In univariate and multivariate association analyses, the dimensions of Consequences, Identity, Personal control, and Anxiety- and Depressive symptoms predicted health-status significantly and independently of each other. In addition Consequences was the dimension that independently was associated with both PCS and MCS. In concordance with other studies [10], patients had strong beliefs about the illness having negative Consequences, and the stronger the beliefs in this area were, the lower the degree of physical and mental health (PCS and MCS). The more the patients believed the illness would have negative Consequences and affect their mental wellbeing (Emotional representation) the more they expressed having anxiety and depressive symptoms. There are difficulties assessing whether anxiety and depressive symptoms are pre-existing, favouring the development of chronic pain, or a consequence of the chronic pain [44]. The stronger the belief in Personal control over symptoms and that illness is amenable to treatment (Treatment control), the higher patients rated their physical health and the less impact of pain they reported. de Rooij et al. [17] found that strong beliefs about Personal and Treatment control were associated with improved outcome of rehabilitation. These beliefs could be strengthened through care and bio-psychosocial rehabilitation with more patient involvement and through sharing views on how to manage the condition [17]. The more symptoms (Identity) patients related to their illness, the more they experienced anxiety and depressive symptoms, the lower they rated their physical and mental health, and the greater the impact of pain they reported, all of which is consistent with previous research (14, 22). Some 30% of the patients had considerable anxiety and depressive symptoms, which is in line with earlier studies demonstrating substantial rates of mood disorders in chronic pain patients [20, 21, 45, 46]. Ovemeer et al. [47] found in a study of patients with back-pain, that distress and negative emotions probably prevented them from benefiting from the offered bio-psychosocial treatment. When their constraining beliefs were not challenged but persisted they were consequently at risk of higher disability. This might be one explanation for why such a large proportion as 60% in the present study reported their health as worse than a year ago (data from the SF-36) even though they had had contact with the pain clinic. As hypothesized, constraining beliefs in patients with CWP were associated with decreased health status with anxiety- and depressive symptoms accounted for.

Generic rather than illness-specific instruments for examining illness beliefs and self-reported health were used, which was nevertheless well suited to this group of respondents since chronic pain patients were included in the development of IPQ-R [12] and SF-36 is a generic instrument considered to be useful in most patient groups [29]. IPQ-R was chosen for examining beliefs because it was easy to access, had been translated into Swedish, had a sound theoretical background, and is one of the most validated and most frequently used measures for examining illness beliefs. In the present study, all parts of IPQ-R were used to give a fuller description of the beliefs that patients with CWP held. However, some limitations should be considered, such as the large number of items, which might be difficult to complete, thereby entailing a risk of missing items. Self-reporting by mail is convenient but limited by the respondents’ ability to comprehend and is a risk for a higher non-response bias, although the method provides ample time for completing the questionnaire. In the present study the response rate was 46%, which might limit the generalizability.

The items in the Identity domain seems to be difficult to complete which may be because the option of “I do not know” is missing, which might explain some of the missing data. The non-respondents were significantly younger than the respondents. Young patients and other patients who have not experienced the severity of their illness long enough might not identify themselves as CWP patients, which may have affected participation in the study. Furthermore, the present patient group is not matched in the comparison of results with other illness groups and the results of the comparison should be interpreted only as an estimate. Comorbidities might influence illness beliefs but were not assessed in this study. Additional factors that may have affected the results are that, before answering the questionnaire, some patients may have received care or treatment in connection with the visit to the pain clinic, such as bio-psychosocial rehabilitation or events in daily life that were not controlled for in the present study. Missing data were not accounted for and in the regression analysis the number of patients decreased when the dimension of Identity was included, which may have affected the result. The design of this study does not allow conclusions to be drawn regarding causal relationships.

Illness beliefs have been shown to predict the outcome of treatment [48], to change over time [49] and they may be improved by treatment [50]. Furthermore, the beliefs of an illness rather than the symptoms themselves have been shown to account for patients´ illness adaptation [51]. The results of this study show that besides examining pain characteristics and the impact of pain, illness beliefs of patients and level of anxiety and depression are important to address when offering rehabilitation for patients with CWP. Illness beliefs may be regarded as a personal factor [22, 52] that influences health and interacts with functioning, and may facilitate understanding differences in how patients are managing their illness. Thus, strengthening facilitating illness beliefs and challenging constraining beliefs could be of vital importance in the rehabilitation of patients with CWP, helping them to maintain and improve their health. The effect of such rehabilitation taking illness beliefs into account should therefore be scientifically evaluated. Future studies could further examine the relationships between the factors studied in the present research, including the impact of illness beliefs on health status in the longitudinal perspective.

The findings of this study show that the patients had several constraining beliefs about their CWP that were related to worse health-status, especially in cases of high numbers of attributed physical or mental symptoms. Illness beliefs are important to determine because patients act according to their beliefs [5, 6]. Therefore, according to the findings in this study, patients need support in understanding CWP and in managing the psychological factors and risk factors they believed caused their CWP. The patients additionally need emotional support and involvement in treatment to manage various symptoms and types of pain. Control over symptoms and reduction of negative consequences of living with CWP are essential since these beliefs were shown to affect both mental and physical health and to increase the impact of pain. Finding out the patients’ illness beliefs may facilitate understanding of their previous attempts to manage their illness and customization of individual treatment in rehabilitation programs, and may help in the development of new evidence-based interventions.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We authors wish to express our gratitude to all the patients participating in the study and to Anchor English Proofreading Services for professional revision.

Funding

No funding.

Availability of data and materials

Data will not be shared due to on-going study but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Authors’ contributions

PJ: design, planning, conducting, data collection, performing analyses, reporting by writing the manuscript. MA: design, planning, valuable comments on the manuscript and interpretation of results. BG: design, planning, analyses of SF-36 data, management of disease-related information of persons with CWP, valuable comments on the manuscript and interpretation of results. BL: design, planning, management of disease-related information of persons with CWP, valuable comments on the manuscript and interpretation of results. KG: design, planning, conducting; performing analyses, valuable comments on the manuscript and interpretation of results. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was approved by the regional Ethics committee in Stockholm (2011/1384–31/3) and approval was obtained from the management of the pain and rehabilitation centre. The participants consented to participation in the study by returning the self-report measures.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Division of Nursing, Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Karolinska Institutet
(2)
Pain and Rehabilitation Centre, and Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Linköping University

References

  1. Gerdle B, Bjork J, Coster L, Henriksson K, Henriksson C, Bengtsson A. Prevalence of widespread pain and associations with work status: a population study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2008;9:102.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Mansfield KE, Sim J, Jordan JL, Jordan KP. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalence of chronic widespread pain in the general population. Pain. 2016;157(1):55.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Wolfe F, Smythe HA, Yunus MB, Bennett RM, Bombardier C, Goldenberg DL, Tugwell P, Campbell SM, Abeles M, Clark P et al: The American College of Rheumatology 1990 criteria for the classification of fibromyalgia. Report of the multicenter criteria committee. Arthritis Rheum 1990, 33(2):160-172.Google Scholar
  4. MacFarlane GJ, Croft PR, Schollum J, Silman AJ. Widespread pain: is an improved classification possible? J Rheumatol. 1996;23(9):1628–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Wright LM, Bell JM: Beliefs and illness : a model for healing. [Calgary]: 4th Floor Press; 2009.Google Scholar
  6. Horne R, Weinman J. Patients' beliefs about prescribed medicines and their role in adherence to treatment in chronic physical illness. J Psychosom Res. 1999;47(6):555–67.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Moss-Morris R, Humphrey K, Johnson MH, Petrie KJ. Patients' perceptions of their pain condition across a multidisciplinary pain management program: do they change and if so does it matter? Clin J Pain. 2007;23(7):558–64.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Sullivan MJL, Thorn B, Haythornthwaite JA, Keefe F, Martin M, Bradley LA, et al. Theoretical perspectives on the relation between Catastrophizing and pain. Clin J Pain. 2001;17(1):52–64.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Buckelew SP, Murray SE, Hewett JE, Johnson J, Huyser B. Self-efficacy, pain, and physical activity among fibromyalgia subjects. Arthritis Care Res. 1995;8(1):43–50.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. van Wilgen CP, van Ittersum MW, Kaptein AA, van Wijhe M. Illness perceptions in patients with fibromyalgia and their relationship to quality of life and catastrophizing. Arthritis Rheum. 2008;58(11):3618–26.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Weinman JPK, Moss-Morris R, Horne R. The illness perception questionnaire: a new method for assessing the cognitive representations of illness. Psychol Health. 1996;11:431–45.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Moss-Morris R, Weinman J, Petrie KJ, Horne R, Cameron LD, Buick D. The revised illness perception questionnaire (IPQ-R). Psychol Health. 2002;17(1):1–16.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Leventhal H ND, Steele DS: Illness representations and coping with health threats. In: Handbook of psychology and health., vol. IV. 219–252. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1984.Google Scholar
  14. Snelgrove S, Liossi C. Living with chronic low back pain: a metasynthesis of qualitative research. Chronic Illn. 2013;9(4):283–301.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. van Ittersum MW, van Wilgen CP, Hilberdink WK, Groothoff JW, van der Schans CP. Illness perceptions in patients with fibromyalgia. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;74(1):53–60.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Glattacker M, Opitz U, Jäckel WH. Illness representations in women with fibromyalgia. Br J Health Psychol. 2010;15(2):367–87.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. de Rooij A, de Boer MR, van der Leeden M, Roorda LD, Steultjens MP, Dekker J. Cognitive mechanisms of change in multidisciplinary treatment of patients with chronic widespread pain: a prospective cohort study. J Rehabil Med. 2014;46(2):173–80.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Fayers P MD: Quality of life: The assessment, analysis and interpretation of patient reported outcomes., 2nd Ed. edn: Wiley-Blackwell.; 2007.Google Scholar
  19. Nicholl BI, Macfarlane GJ, Davies KA, Morriss R, Dickens C, McBeth J. Premorbid psychosocial factors are associated with poor health-related quality of life in subjects with new onset of chronic widespread pain – results from the EPIFUND study. Pain. 2008;141(1–2):119–26.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Consoli G, Marazziti D, Ciapparelli A, Bazzichi L, Massimetti G, Giacomelli C, et al. The impact of mood, anxiety, and sleep disorders on fibromyalgia. Compr Psychiatry. 2012;53(7):962.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Yalcin I, Barrot M. The anxiodepressive comorbidity in chronic pain. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2014;27(5):520.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Klassifikation av funktionstillstånd, funktionshinder och hälsa : svensk version av International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Stockholm: Stockholm : Socialstyr.; 2003.Google Scholar
  23. Rehabilitering vid långvarig smärta : en systematisk litteraturöversikt : partiell uppdatering och fördjupning av SBU-rapport nr 177/1+2. Swedish Council on Health Technology Assessment. Rehabilitation of Patients with Chronic Pain Conditions: A systematic Review. In. Edited by utvärdering Sbfm. Stockholm: Stockholm : Statens beredning för medicinsk utvärdering SBU; 2010.Google Scholar
  24. Kamaleri Y, Natvig B, Ihlebaek CM, Benth JS, Bruusgaard D. Number of pain sites is associated with demographic, lifestyle, and health-related factors in the general population. Eur J Pain. 2008;12(6):742–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Alsen P, Brink E, Persson LO, Brandstrom Y, Karlson BW. Illness perceptions after myocardial infarction: relations to fatigue, emotional distress, and health-related quality of life. J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2010;25(2):E1–e10.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Brink E, Alsen P, Cliffordson C. Validation of the revised illness perception questionnaire (IPQ-R) in a sample of persons recovering from myocardial infarction--the Swedish version. Scand J Psychol. 2011;52(6):573–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Maas M, Taal E, van der Linden S, Boonen A. A review of instruments to assess illness representations in patients with rheumatic diseases. Ann Rheum Dis. 2009;68(3):305–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Nicholls EE, Hill S, Foster NE. Musculoskeletal pain illness perceptions: factor structure of the illness perceptions questionnaire-revised. Psychol Health. 2013;28(1):84–102.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Sullivan M, Karlsson J, Ware JE. The Swedish SF-36 health survey—I. Evaluation of data quality, scaling assumptions, reliability and construct validity across general populations in Sweden. Soc Sci Med. 1995;41(10):1349–58.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Persson L-O, Karlsson J, Bengtsson C, Steen B, Sullivan M. The Swedish SF-36 health survey II. Evaluation of clinical validity: results from population studies of elderly and women in Gothenborg. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51(11):1095–103.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Sullivan M, Karlsson J. The Swedish SF-36 health survey III. Evaluation of criterion-based validity: results from normative population. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51(11):1105–13.Google Scholar
  32. Sullivan M, Karlsson J, Taft C, Ware JE. SF-36 hälsoenkät : svensk manual och tolkningsguide = (Swedish manual and interpretation guide). Sahlgrenska sjukhuset, Sektionen för vårdforskning: Göteborg; 2002.Google Scholar
  33. Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1983;67(6):361–70.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Lisspers J, Nygren A, Soderman E. Hospital anxiety and depression scale (HAD): some psychometric data for a Swedish sample. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1997;96(4):281–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Campbell MJ, Machin D, Walters SJ. Medical statistics : a textbook for the health sciences. In., 4 edn. Somerset: Wiley; 2010.Google Scholar
  36. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. L. Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale; 1988.Google Scholar
  37. SSYK 2012 : Standard för svensk yrkesklassificering = [Swedish Standard Classification of Occupations 2012]. Stockholm: Statistiska centralbyrån; 2012.Google Scholar
  38. Mundal I, Gråwe RW, Bjørngaard JH, Linaker OM, Fors EA. Prevalence and long-term predictors of persistent chronic widespread pain in the general population in an 11-year prospective study: the HUNT study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2014;15:213.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  39. Larsson B, Bjork J, Borsbo B, Gerdle B. A systematic review of risk factors associated with transitioning from regional musculoskeletal pain to chronic widespread pain. Eur J Pain. 2012;16(8):1084–93.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Scharloo M. Baatenburg de Jong RJ, Langeveld TP, van Velzen-Verkaik E, Doorn-op den Akker MM, Kaptein AA: quality of life and illness perceptions in patients with recently diagnosed head and neck cancer. Head Neck. 2005;27(10):857–63.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Searle A, Norman P, Thompson R, Vedhara K. A prospective examination of illness beliefs and coping in patients with type 2 diabetes. Br J Health Psychol. 2007;12(4):621–38.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Jaremo P, Arman M. Causes of illness-constraining and facilitating beliefs. Int J Nurs Pract. 2011;17(4):370–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Helman C: Culture, health and illness, 5., [rev.] ed. edn. London: London : Hodder Arnold; 2007.Google Scholar
  44. Blackburn-munro G, Blackburn-munro RE: Chronic Pain, Chronic Stress and Depression: Coincidence or Consequence? In., vol. 13. Oxford, UK; 2001: 1009–1023.Google Scholar
  45. Peñacoba Puente C, Velasco Furlong L, Écija Gallardo C, Cigarán Méndez M, Bedmar Cruz D, Fernández-de-Las-Peñas C. Self-efficacy and affect as mediators between pain dimensions and emotional symptoms and functional limitation in women with fibromyalgia. Pain Manag Nurs. 2015;16(1):60–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Kamping S, Bomba IC, Kanske P, Diesch E, Flor H. Deficient modulation of pain by a positive emotional context in fibromyalgia patients. Pain. 2013;154(9):1846–55.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Overmeer T, Boersma K. What messages do patients remember? Relationships among Patients' perceptions of physical Therapists' messages, patient characteristics, satisfaction, and outcome. Phys Ther. 2016;96(3):275.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Crawshaw J, Rimington H, Weinman J, Chilcot J. Illness perception profiles and their association with 10-year survival following cardiac valve replacement. Ann Behav Med. 2015;49(5):769–75.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Bijsterbosch J, Scharloo M, Visser AW, Watt I, Meulenbelt I, Huizinga TWJ, et al. Illness perceptions in patients with osteoarthritis: change over time and association with disability. Arthritis Care Res. 2009;61(8):1054–61.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  50. Siemonsma PC, Stuive I, Roorda LD, Vollebregt JA, Walker MF, Lankhorst GJ, et al. Cognitive treatment of illness perceptions in patients with chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. Phys Ther. 2013;93(4):435–48.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Knowles S, Swan L, Salzberg M, Castle D, Langham R. Exploring the relationships between health status, illness perceptions, coping strategies and psychological morbidity in a chronic kidney disease cohort. Am J Med Sci. 2014;348(4):271–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Swedish Council on Health Technology Assessment. Rehabilitation of Patients with chronic Pain Conditions: A systematic Review. Rehabilitering vid långvarig smärta : en systematisk litteraturöversikt : partiell uppdatering och fördjupning av SBU-rapport nr 177/1+2. Stockholm: Statens beredning för medicinsk utvärdering (SBU); 2010.Google Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2017

Advertisement