[Distress tolerance and experience of chronic pain]. / Tolérance à la détresse et expérience de la douleur chronique.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic pain is a highly prevalent condition that is associated with distressing somatic and emotional experiences. Consequently, an individual's distress tolerance, the perceived capacity to tolerate negative psychological and physical states, may influence their pain experience. This effect could be explained in part by a reduction in the catastrophic interpretation of pain which is associated with increased pain intensity and interference in everyday activities. AIMS: The first aim of this study was to explore the association between the components of the 5-factor model of distress tolerance and (1) pain intensity and (2) pain interference in everyday activities. The secondary aim was to assess the potential mediating effect of pain catastrophizing in the eventual association between components of distress tolerance and (1) pain intensity or (2) pain interference in everyday activities. METHOD: This is a cross-sectional study of adult (18 years or older) university students and staff with chronic pain (3 months). They were invited to complete the online questionnaire through an email invitation. Pain intensity and interference in everyday functioning were assessed with the corresponding subscales of the Brief Pain Inventory. The following instruments were used to assess the components of the 5-factor model of distress tolerance: Ambiguity Tolerance Scale (tolerance to ambiguity), Intolerance to Uncertainty Scale (reversed score: tolerance to uncertainty), Discomfort Intolerance Scale (reversed score: discomfort tolerance), Distress Tolerance Scale (tolerance to negative emotions), Frustration Discomfort Scale (tolerance to frustration). Participants also completed the Pain Catastrophizing Scale. RESULTS: Eighty participants were recruited (57 % women, mean age=33.09; standard deviation=12,87). Tolerance to negative emotions was the only component of distress tolerance that was associated with pain (ß=-0.04; 95% CI): -0.07--0.01; t (78)=-3.06, p<0.01) or pain interference in everyday functioning (ß=-0.07; 95% CI: -0.10--0.03; t (78)=-3.97, p<0.01), independently of the others. Combined with age, these factors explained 16.2 % of the variance in pain intensity and 19.4 % of the variance in pain interference. Pain catastrophizing partially mediated the association between tolerance to negative emotions and pain interference in everyday functioning, but it was not involved in the association between tolerance to negative emotions and pain intensity. CONCLUSION: Tolerance to negative emotions appears to be the most relevant aspect of distress tolerance in the context of chronic pain and is a potential clinical target that is independent and complementary from pain catastrophizing.

Development and Implementation of a Registry of Patients Attending Multidisciplinary Pain Treatment Clinics: The Quebec Pain Registry.

The Quebec Pain Registry (QPR) is a large research database of patients suffering from various chronic pain (CP) syndromes who were referred to one of five tertiary care centres in the province of Quebec (Canada). Patients were monitored using common demographics, identical clinical descriptors, and uniform validated outcomes. This paper describes the development, implementation, and research potential of the QPR. Between 2008 and 2013, 6902 patients were enrolled in the QPR, and data were collected prior to their first visit at the pain clinic and six months later. More than 90% of them (mean age ± SD: 52.76 ± 4.60, females: 59.1%) consented that their QPR data be used for research purposes. The results suggest that, compared to patients with serious chronic medical disorders, CP patients referred to tertiary care clinics are more severely impaired in multiple domains including emotional and physical functioning. The QPR is also a powerful and comprehensive tool for conducting research in a "real-world" context with 27 observational studies and satellite research projects which have been completed or are underway. It contains data on the clinical evolution of thousands of patients and provides the opportunity of answering important research questions on various aspects of CP (or specific pain syndromes) and its management.

Cancer genetics in primary care. When is genetic screening an option and when is it the standard of care?

In some families, predisposition to cancer is caused by a germline mutation in a single gene, which produces an autosomal dominant pattern of cancer transmission. Several hereditary cancer syndromes have been identified and for many of them, genetic testing is clinically available. Determining which patients are at risk for hereditary cancer begins by taking a complete family history. In particular, a three-generation family history and pedigree can provide valuable information for both patients and primary care physicians. When the history supports the possibility of hereditary cancer, a qualified genetic professional can assist with specific advice about testing and treatment options for the entire family. If pedigree analysis substantiates a heritable form of cancer, patients should be thoroughly informed about potential benefits, limitations, and risks of genetic screening and offered testing as appropriate. The ultimate goal is to reduce cancer morbidity and mortality through interventions that decrease cancer risk or increase early detection.

Autologous donation error rates in Canada.

BACKGROUND: Although certain transfusion risks are eliminated by the use of autologous blood, clerical errors may still occur. In addition, because of differences in donor selection criteria and donor-patient expectations, the consequences of certain errors may be different in autologous and allogeneic donations. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: In January 1996, autologous donation error rates in Canada from 1989 to November 1995 were estimated by 1) a detailed questionnaire sent to hospitals supplied by the Canadian Red Cross, Blood Services, Transfusion Center of Quebec at Montreal autologous donation program (n = 31), 2) a review of that institution's quality assurance non-compliance reports, and 3) a detailed questionnaire sent to other Canadian Red Cross centers with autologous donation programs (n = 16) and hospital-based autologous programs in Canada (n = 3). The total number of autologous donations collected was determined from Canadian Red Cross annual reports and information supplied by hospital-based programs. RESULTS: There were 113 errors reported for 16,873 units collected by the Montreal center (1/149 units) based on collection center and hospital data. The most frequent errors were the late receipt of units for surgery (25% of errors) or the receipt of units in the wrong hospital (23%). Other Canadian programs reported 166 errors for approximately 53,500 units collected (1/322 units). However, this figure was based mainly on collection center, and not hospital, data. The most frequent errors were in labeling (48%) and component preparation (25%). One unit of autologous fresh-frozen plasma was transfused to the wrong recipient. Errors were more frequent if components were produced, if units were drawn in hospitals for interhospital transfer, or it units were shipped between Red Cross centers. CONCLUSION: Errors are not infrequent in autologous donation programs. Autologous transfusion should not be considered as being without risk.