Refine
Has Fulltext
- yes (2) (remove)
Year of publication
- 2018 (2) (remove)
Document Type
- Postprint (2)
Language
- English (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (2) (remove)
Keywords
- allostatic load (1)
- back pain (1)
- chronic pain (1)
- exercise (1)
- neuroplasticity (1)
- pain matrix (1)
- physical activity (1)
- relaxation (1)
- stress (1)
Institute
- Humanwissenschaftliche Fakultät (2) (remove)
The genesis of chronic pain is explained by a biopsychosocial model. It hypothesizes an interdependency between environmental and genetic factors provoking aberrant long-term changes in biological and psychological regulatory systems. Physiological effects of psychological and physical stressors may play a crucial role in these maladaptive processes. Specifically, long-term demands on the stress response system may moderate central pain processing and influence descending serotonergic and noradrenergic signals from the brainstem, regulating nociceptive processing at the spinal level. However, the underlying mechanisms of this pathophysiological interplay still remain unclear. This paper aims to shed light on possible pathways between physical (exercise) and psychological stress and the potential neurobiological consequences in the genesis and treatment of chronic pain, highlighting evolving concepts and promising research directions in the treatment of chronic pain. Two treatment forms (exercise and mindfulness-based stress reduction as exemplary therapies), their interaction, and the dose-response will be discussed in more detail, which might pave the way to a better understanding of alterations in the pain matrix and help to develop future prevention and therapeutic concepts
Objective: To investigate associations between socioeconomic status (SES) indicators (education, job position, income, multidimensional index) and the genesis of chronic low back pain (CLBP).
Design: Longitudinal field study (baseline and 6-month follow-up).
Setting: Four medical clinics across Germany.
Participants: 352 people were included according to the following criteria: (1) between 18 and 65 years of age, (2) intermittent pain and (3) an understanding of the study and the ability to answer a questionnaire without help. Exclusion criteria were: (1) pregnancy, (2) inability to stand upright, (3) inability to give sick leave information, (4) signs of serious spinal pathology, (5) acute pain in the past 7 days or (6) an incomplete SES indicators questionnaire.
Outcome measures: Subjective intensity and disability of CLBP.
Results Analysis: showed that job position was the best single predictor of CLBP intensity, followed by a multidimensional index. Education and income had no significant association with intensity. Subjective disability was best predicted by job position, succeeded by the multidimensional index and education, while income again had no significant association.
Conclusion: The results showed that SES indicators have different strong associations with the genesis of CLBP and should therefore not be used interchangeably. Job position was found to be the single most important indicator. These results could be helpful in the planning of back pain care programmes, but in general, more research on the relationship between SES and health outcomes is needed.