Pain begets pain. When marathon runners are not in pain anymore, they underestimate their memory of marathon pain––A mediation analysis

Bąbel, Przemysław; Bajcar, Elżbieta A.; Śmieja, Marek; Adamczyk, Wacław M.; Świder, Karolina; Kicman, Paweł; Lisinska, Natalia

doi:10.1002/ejp.1166

Cited by 15 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…About two thirds of the sample reported overall pain that ranged from 3 (moderate) to 7 (very strong). One of the few prior studies that measured pain associated with marathon running queried 127 participants in a marathon in Kraków, Poland and found that recalled pain intensity of the marathon one week or one month after the marathon averaged between 5 and 6 on an 11-point numerical scale (14). These observations are generally consistent the present ndings.…”

Section: Hypothesis Of Moderate Intensity Pain For Most Runnerssupporting

confidence: 90%

“…The prior study manipulated the timing of the recall post-marathon and compared participants who were, and were not, experiencing pain during the recall period. The authors concluded that pain intensity experienced during a marathon run is underestimated one month after the marathon compared to a week after, and is mediated by the pain experienced when the recall is made (14). No direct comparison can be made between this prior smaller study and the present larger study because of methodological and study aim differences.…”

Section: Hypothesis Of Moderate Intensity Pain For Most Runnersmentioning

confidence: 59%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Pain during a marathon run: Prevalence and correlates in a cross-sectional study of 1251 runners

O’Connor¹

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Science-based information about pain during a marathon run is scant. Based on related research it was hypothesized that: (i) most marathon runners would report moderate intensity pain, (ii) pain during the marathon would be associated with pain experienced while training as well as overall perceived exercise intensity, and (iii) females would experience pain earlier during the marathon and rate the pain intensity as higher after adjusting for expected sex-related differences in effort.Methods 1,251 runners, 550 females, ran in 252 different marathons and completed an online survey. Mile at which pain first occurred indicated pain threshold. Pain intensity was measured with a widely used 0–10 numerical graphical scale. Pearson and partial correlations examined the strength of associations. Sex-related differences in pain were tested using independent t-tests and, for the pain location data, z-scores for tests of two proportions. Effort ratings were added as a covariate in an ANCOVA to test if effort accounted for possible sex-related differences in pain.Results Most runners (99.8%) reported pain during a marathon, and most frequently in the thigh (17.1%), hamstring (10%) and calf (9.3%) body locations. The mean pain threshold occurred at 15.7 ± 6.1 miles; the mean overall pain intensity was 5.26 ± 2.45. No sex-related pain differences were found. Overall pain intensity during a marathon was significantly associated with: pain intensity of training runs (r = .39), percentage of training days with run-induced pain (r = .23), highest intensity pain ever experienced (r = .23), number of prior marathons (r = − .18) and intensity of effort (r = .11) (all P < 0.001).Conclusions Most runners experience moderate to very strong intensity pain during a marathon; the pain is independent of biological sex, and the pain is associated with marathon race experience, pain during training, race effort and the highest intensity of pain ever experienced.

show abstract

Section: Hypothesis Of Moderate Intensity Pain For Most Runnerssupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Hypothesis Of Moderate Intensity Pain For Most Runnersmentioning

confidence: 59%

Pain during a marathon run: Prevalence and correlates in a cross-sectional study of 1251 runners

O’Connor¹

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Traditionally, researchers and practitioners have relied on patients’ recall to assess pain, as well as to track and evaluate pain management routines [5]. While still a convenient method, many recent studies point to memory errors and distortions that influence pain recall [6-9]. For example, the “peak-end effect” causes the more recent experiences to have an especially strong influence on recall [10], and the “duration neglect” results in a tendency to ignore periods without pain [11].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perception of Older Adults Toward Smartwatch Technology for Assessing Pain and Related Patient-Reported Outcomes: Pilot Study

Manini¹,

Mendoza²,

Battula³

et al. 2019

JMIR Mhealth Uhealth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Chronic pain, including arthritis, affects about 100 million adults in the United States. Complexity and diversity of the pain experience across time and people and its fluctuations across and within days show the need for valid pain reports that do not rely on patient’s long-term recall capability. Smartwatches can be used as digital ecological momentary assessment (EMA) tools for real-time collection of pain scores. Smartwatches are generally less expensive than smartphones, are highly portable, and have a simpler user interface, providing an excellent medium for continuous data collection and enabling a higher compliance rate. Objective The aim of this study was to explore the attitudes and perceptions of older adults towards design and technological aspects of a smartwatch framework for measuring patient report outcomes (PRO) as an EMA tool. Methods A focus group session was conducted to explore the perception of participants towards smartwatch technology and its utility for PRO assessment. Participants included older adults (age 65+), with unilateral or bilateral symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. A preliminary user interface with server communication capability was developed and deployed on 10 Samsung Gear S3 smartwatches and provided to the users during the focus group. Pain was designated as the main PRO, while fatigue, mood, and sleep quality were included as auxiliary PROs. Pre-planned topics included participants’ attitude towards the smartwatch technology, usability of the custom-designed app interface, and suitability of the smartwatch technology for PRO assessment. Discussions were transcribed, and content analysis with theme characterization was performed to identify and code the major themes. Results We recruited 19 participants (age 65+) who consented to take part in the focus group study. The overall attitude of the participants toward the smartwatch technology was positive. They showed interest in the direct phone-call capability, availability of extra apps such as the weather apps and sensors for tracking health and wellness such as accelerometer and heart rate sensor. Nearly three-quarters of participants showed willingness to participate in a one-year study to wear the watch daily. Concerns were raised regarding usability, including accessibility (larger icons), notification customization, and intuitive interface design (unambiguous icons and assessment scales). Participants expressed interest in using smartwatch technology for PRO assessment and the availability of methods for sharing data with health care providers. Conclusions All participants had overall positive views of the smartwatch technology for measuring PROs to facilitate patient-provider communications and to provide more targeted treatments and interventions in the future. Usability concerns were the major issues that will require special consideration in future smartwatch PRO user interf...

show abstract

“…Babel et al. () also reinforce this assumption and report that studies that provide elements related to the memory of pain can have practical implications in the handling of different pain conditions. Therefore, knowing the burden that the individual assigns to his/her last pain experience can be a useful information in the process of designing educational and/or preventive measures in the context of pain.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…Therefore, knowing the burden that the individual assigns to his/her last pain experience can be a useful information in the process of designing educational and/or preventive measures in the context of pain. Despite the controversy existing in the literature regarding the accuracy of the reports made by individuals about their past experiences (Babel et al, 2018), we should emphasize that, regardless of whether or not this report reflect the true state of the pain, this is the individual's perception, and as such it must be considered. The construction of the perception of pain is influenced by experiences and interpretations, that is, the sensations may present components of a reconstruction and, therefore, may be deformed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Brief Pain Inventory: A proposal to extend its clinical application

Bonafé

Campos

Marôco

et al. 2018

European Journal of Pain

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background This study presents an adaptation of the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) extending its use in clinical/epidemiological contexts and the evaluation of the properties of BPI (short form) in a sample of Brazilian adults. Methods Part of item 1 of this instrument was removed because it prevented the participation of individuals with usual pain. In addition to the reference period of original response “last 24 hr,” a new period “last pain experience” was proposed. Individuals responded about the presence/lack and onset of pain. Individuals who reported pain in the last 24 hr before the interview answered the BPI considering both reference periods. Confirmatory factor analysis was performed to check the fit of five theoretical BPI models. Results A total of 1,176 adults participated (79.0% women; 38.7 (SD = 10.8) years), 29.2% did not report pain in the last 24 hr, 33.6% reported pain <3 months and 37.2% pain ≥3 months. All theoretical BPI models presented adequate fit indices (GFI ≥ 0.9; RMSEA < 0.1; α ≥ 0.7) when both reference periods were used. In conclusion, the adaptations proposed can contribute to extend the use of BPI. Conclusions The reference period of responses and the theoretical model used must be chosen according to the needs of the researcher and/or physician. Significance This study presents evidence related to the validity of applying the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) in adults with and without pain considering the present pain or memory of pain, enabling the clinician to collect additional information that may be relevant to the clinical management of pain.

show abstract

Pain begets pain. When marathon runners are not in pain anymore, they underestimate their memory of marathon pain––A mediation analysis

Abstract: This study explores factors acting during recall, influencing memory of naturally occurring pain induced by physical effort. The empirical findings provide the first robust evidence for a causal relationship between memory of pain and present pain during recall.

Cited by 15 publications

References 52 publications

Pain during a marathon run: Prevalence and correlates in a cross-sectional study of 1251 runners

Pain during a marathon run: Prevalence and correlates in a cross-sectional study of 1251 runners

Perception of Older Adults Toward Smartwatch Technology for Assessing Pain and Related Patient-Reported Outcomes: Pilot Study

Brief Pain Inventory: A proposal to extend its clinical application

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About