Pain-coping scale for children and their parents: a cross-sectional study in children with musculoskeletal pain.

BACKGROUND: In a chronic pain-causing disease such as juvenile idiopathic arthritis, the quality of coping with pain is crucial. Parents have a substantial influence on their children's pain-coping strategies. This study aimed to develop scales for assessing parents' strategies for coping with their children's pain and a shorter improved scale for children usable in clinical practice. METHODS: The number of items in the Finnish version of the pain-coping questionnaire for children was reduced from 39 to 20. A corresponding reduced scale was created for parental use. We recruited consecutive patients from nine hospitals evenly distributed throughout Finland, aged 8-16 years who visited a paediatric rheumatology outpatient clinic and reported musculoskeletal pain during the past week. The patients and parents rated the child's pain on a visual analogue scale from 0 to 100 and completed pain-coping questionnaires and depression inventories. The selection process of pain questionnaire items was performed using factor analyses. RESULTS: The average (standard deviation) age of the 130 patients was 13.0 (2.3) years; 91 (70%) were girls. Four factors were retained in the new, improved Pain-Coping Scales for children and parents. Both scales had 15 items with 2-5 items/factor. The goodness-of-fit statistics and Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficients were satisfactory to good in both scaled. The criterion validity was acceptable as the demographic, disease related, and the depression and stress questionnaires correlated with the subscales. CONCLUSIONS: We created a shorter, feasible pain-coping scale for children and a novel scale for caregivers. In clinical work, the pain coping scales may serve as a visualisation of different types of coping strategies for paediatric patients with pain and their parents and facilitate the identification of families in need of psychological support.

Validating 10-joint juvenile arthritis disease activity score cut-offs for disease activity levels in non-systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

Objectives: To validate cut-offs of the Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score 10 (JADAS10) and clinical JADAS10 (cJADAS10) and to compare them with other patient cohorts. Methods: In a national multicentre study, cross-sectional data on recent visits of 337 non-systemic patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) were collected from nine paediatric outpatient units. The cut-offs were tested with receiver operating characteristic curve-based methods, and too high, too low and correct classification rates (CCRs) were calculated. Results: Our earlier presented JADAS10 cut-offs seemed feasible based on the CCRs, but the cut-off values between low disease activity (LDA) and moderate disease activity (MDA) were adjusted. When JADAS10 cut-offs for clinically inactive disease (CID) were increased to 1.5 for patients with oligoarticular disease and 2.7 for patients with polyarticular disease, as recently suggested in a large multinational register study, altogether 11 patients classified as CID by the cut-off had one active joint. We suggest JADAS10 cut-off values for oligoarticular/polyarticular disease to be in CID: 0.0-0.5/0.0-0.7, LDA: 0.6-3.8/0.8-5.1 and MDA: >3.8/5.1. Suitable cJADAS10 cut-offs are the same as JADAS10 cut-offs in oligoarticular disease. In polyarticular disease, cJADAS10 cut-offs are 0-0.7 for CID, 0.8-5.0 for LDA and >5.0 for MDA. Conclusion: International consensus on JADAS cut-off values is needed, and such a cut-off for CID should preferably exclude patients with active joints in the CID group.

Risk severity moderated effectiveness of pain treatment in adolescents.

Background and aims A targeted pain program may prevent the progression and subsequent occurrence of chronic pain in adolescents. This study tested the effectiveness of a new acceptance and commitment therapy -based pain management intervention, using physical and psychological functions as the outcomes. The objective was also to determine whether Pediatric Pain Screening Tool risk profiles function as outcome moderator in the current sample. A valid screening tool would enable the program development. Methods Thirty-two consecutive adolescent patients (13-17 years old) with idiopathic recurrent musculoskeletal pain completed the study. The intervention comprised acceptance and commitment therapy-oriented multidisciplinary treatment. Pediatric Pain Screening Tool, pain frequency, functional disability, school attendance, physical endurance, depressive symptoms, and catastrophizing coping style were measured before treatment (baseline) and again at 6 and 12 months after the initiation of treatment. To test the effectiveness of the new program, we also determined whether the original risk classification of each patient remained constant during the intervention. Results The intervention was effective for high-risk patients. In particular, the pain frequency decreased, and psychosocial measures improved. In post-intervention, the original risk classification of seven patients in the high-risk category changed to medium-risk. PPST classification acted as a moderator of the outcome of the current program. Conclusions The categorization highlighted the need to modify the program content for the medium-risk patients. The categorization is a good tool to screen adolescent patients with pain. Implications The results support using the Pediatric Pain Screening Tool in developing rehabilitation program for pediatric musculoskeletal pain patients. According to the result, for adolescent prolonged musculoskeletal pain patients the use of ACT-based intervention program is warranted.

Prolonged, widespread, disabling musculoskeletal pain of adolescents among referrals to the Pediatric Rheumatology Outpatient Clinic from the Päijät-Häme Hospital District in southern Finland.

Background and aims Musculoskeletal pain among adolescents is a problem for the patients and their families and has economic consequences for society. The aim of this study is to determine the incidence of prolonged disabling musculoskeletal pain of adolescents among referrals to a pediatric rheumatology outpatient clinic and describe the patient material. The second aim is to find proper screening tools which identifies patients with a risk of pain chronification and to test whether our patients fit the Pediatric Pain Screening Tool (PPST) stratification according to Simons et al. Methods We selected adolescent patients with disabling, prolonged, musculoskeletal pain and calculated the incidence. Furthermore, after the patient collection, we adjusted our pain patients to PPST. Results The incidence of prolonged musculoskeletal pain patients at our clinic was 42/100,000 patient years (pyrs) (age 13-18; 95% CI: 29-60) during years 2010-2015. A nine-item screening tool by Simons et al. proves to be valid for our patient group and helps to identify those patients who need early, prompt treatment. The functional risk stratification by Simons et al. correlates with our patients' functional disability. Conclusions and implications In order to prevent disability and to target intervention, it is necessary to have proper and rapid screening tools to find the appropriate patients in time.

Defining new clinically derived criteria for high disease activity in non-systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a Finnish multicentre study.

OBJECTIVES: To redefine criteria for high disease activity (HDA) in JIA, to establish HDA cut-off values for the 10-joint Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score (JADAS10) and clinical JADAS10 (cJADAS10) and to describe the distribution of patients' disease activity levels based on the JADAS cut-off values in the literature. METHODS: Data on 305 treatment-naïve JIA patients were collected from nine paediatric units treating JIA. The median parameters of the JADAS were proposed to be the clinical criteria for HDA. The cut-off values were assessed by using two receiver operating characteristics curve-based methods. The patients were divided into disease activity levels based on currently used JADAS cut-off values. RESULTS: We proposed new criteria for HDA. At least three of the following criteria must be satisfied in both disease courses: in oligoarthritis, two or more active joints, ESR above normal, physician global assessment (PGA) of disease activity ≥2 and parent/patient global assessment (PtGA) of well-being ≥2; in polyarthritis, six or more active joints, ESR above normal, PGA of overall disease activity ≥4 and PtGA of well-being ≥2. The HDA cut-off values for JADAS10 (cJADAS) were ≥6.7 (6.7) for oligoarticular and ≥15.3 (14.1) for polyarticular disease. The distribution of the disease activity levels based on the JADAS cut-off values in the literature varied markedly based on which cut-offs were used. CONCLUSION: New clinically derived criteria for HDA in JIA and both JADAS and cJADAS cut-off values for HDA were proposed.

Finding specific 10-joint Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score (JADAS10) and clinical JADAS10 cut-off values for disease activity levels in non-systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a Finnish multicentre study.

OBJECTIVES: To establish the cut-off values for inactive disease, as well as low disease activity (LDA), moderate disease activity (MDA) and high disease activity (HDA) in non-systemic JIA based on the Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score (JADAS) and assessed with the 10-joint JADAS (JADAS10) and clinical JADAS10 (cJADAS10). METHODS: In a multicentre cross-sectional study consisting of ∼20% of all patients with JIA in Finland (n = 509), we obtained data on their most recent registered visits between January 2013 and January 2014. We calculated the JADAS10 and cJADAS10 and established the cut-off values of both of these scores using two different receiver operating characteristics-based statistical methods. RESULTS: Of the 509 patients studied, 65.8% were females and 53.8% had polyarticular disease. The most suitable method for determining cut-off values was the Youden index. In oligoarticular patients, a JADAS10 score of 0-0.5 represented inactive disease, 0.6-2.7 LDA and ≥2.8 MDA. In polyarticular disease, a JADAS10 score of 0-0.7 represented inactive disease, 0.8-3.9 LDA and ≥4.0 MDA. The cut-off values for HDA were not possible to establish because only two visits fulfilled HDA criteria. CONCLUSION: We established cut-off values for LDA and MDA. A reliable definition for HDA will require more patients. In the clinical setting, both the cJADAS10 and JADAS10 serve equally well both for research and quality control purposes. In the future, uniform clinical disease activity levels should be established. We also suggest revising and validating the criteria for HDA. Valid and robust cut-off values for disease activity levels can guide both clinicians and researchers and equip them for quality control.