No abstract

Psychological well-being (WB) includes a person's overall appraisal of his or her life (Global WB) and affective state (Hedonic WB), and it is considered a key aspect of the health of individuals and groups. Several cross-sectional studies have documented a relation between Global WB and age. Little is known, however, about the age distribution of Hedonic WB. It may yield a different view of aging because it is less influenced by the cognitive reconstruction inherent in Global WB measures and because it includes both positive and negative components of WB. In this study we report on both Global and Hedonic WB assessed in a 2008 telephone survey of 340,847 people in the United States. Consistent with prior studies, Global WB and positive Hedonic WB generally had U-shaped age profiles showing increased WB after the age of 50 years. However, negative Hedonic WB variables showed distinctly different and stronger patterns: Stress and Anger steeply declined from the early 20s, Worry was elevated through middle age and then declined, and Sadness was essentially flat. Unlike a prior study, men and women had very similar age profiles of WB. Several measures that could plausibly covary with the age-WB association (e.g., having children at home) did not alter the age-WB patterns. Global and Hedonic WB measures appear to index different aspects of WB over the lifespan, and the postmidlife increase in WB, especially in Hedonic WB, deserves continued exploration.affect | hedonic T o complement economic indicators for policy evaluation, behavioral scientists and economists have developed selfreport questions for measuring psychological well-being (WB). Among other applications, it has been proposed that these measures be used to monitor the WB of the nation (1-3). Two types of WB measures have been developed: Global WB, which assesses an overall judgment of one's life, including one's aspirations, achievements, and current circumstances, and Hedonic WB, which captures affective components of WB, such as the experience of happiness or stress (4). Global and Hedonic WB measures can be viewed as complementary, with each tapping different components of WB; however, both are rarely assessed in the same study.How WB changes with age is an intriguing question, especially in light of prior findings that Global WB improves from middle age onward, even in the face of physical health decline, and little is known about the determinants of this pattern (5). Recent analyses suggest that this pattern is neither attributable to a cohort effect (with people of different ages having experienced different historical conditions) nor limited to Western cultures (5). One study has examined positive and negative affect by age in 2,727 adults (6) and found lower levels of negative affect in old age for men but not for women. The 30-day reporting period used for affect assessment is likely to yield data that are more similar to Global WB than to more immediate affective states (which are used in this study), because lengthy reporting periods are assoc...

Doctors often ask patients to recall recent health experiences, such as pain, fatigue, and quality of life. 1 Research has shown, however, that recall is unreliable and rife with inaccuracies and biases.2 Recognition of recall's shortcomings has led to the use of diaries, which are intended to capture experiences close to the time of occurrence, thus limiting recall bias and producing more accurate data. 3The rationale for using diaries would be undermined if patients failed to complete diaries according to protocol. In this study we used a newly developed paper diary that could objectively record when patients made diary entries in order to compare patients' reported and actual compliance with diary keeping. For comparison, we also used an electronic diary designed to enhance compliance in order to assess what compliance rates might be achieved. Methods and resultsWe recruited 80 adults with chronic pain (pain for >3 hours a day and rated >4 on a 10 point scale) and assigned 40 to keeping a paper diary and 40 to an electronic diary. On satisfying the eligibility criteria, each patient was assigned to the next training session for which he or she was available, regardless of which diary it was for. We conducted one training session for each diary each week, with each training session for the paper diary matched by time and day of the week with an electronic diary training session. Participants were paid $150 and gave their informed consent; patients given the paper diary were not told that compliance would be recorded electronically.The paper diary comprised diary cards bound into a DayRunner Organizer binder. The cards contained 20 questions drawn from several common pain instruments and included fields to record time and date of completion. The diary binders were unobtrusively fitted with photosensors that detected light and recorded when the binder was opened and closed; these were extensively tested and validated. The electronic diary was a Palm computer with software for data collection in clinical trials and presented identical pain questions via a touch screen and recorded time and date of entries. This system (invivodata) incorporated several features to maximise compliance, including auditory prompts, and has demonstrated good compliance. 4 Patients were instructed to complete daily entries at 10 am, 4 pm, and 8 pm within 15 minutes of the target times. With the electronic diary, entries could not be initiated outside the designated 30 minute windows. We considered paper diary entries to be compliant if they were made within the 30 minute windows. A more liberal secondary outcome allowed a 90 minute window around the target times. Reported compliance was based on the time and date that patients recorded on their paper diary cards. Actual compliance was based on the electronic record (from the record of diary binder openings for paper diaries). Paper diary entries were deemed compliant if the binder was opened or closed at any point during the target time window. We also assessed "hoarding" with the pape...

The length of the reporting period specified for items assessing pain and fatigue varies among instruments. How the length of recall impacts the accuracy of symptom reporting is largely unknown. This study investigated the accuracy of ratings for reporting periods ranging from 1 day to 28 days for several items from widely used pain and fatigue measures (SF36v2, Brief Pain Inventory, McGill Pain Questionnaire, Brief Fatigue Inventory). Patients from a community rheumatology practice (N=83) completed momentary pain and fatigue items on average 5.4 times per day for a month using an electronic diary. Averaged momentary ratings formed the basis for comparison with recall ratings interspersed throughout the month referencing 1-day, 3-day, 7-day, and 28-day periods. As found in previous research, recall ratings were consistently inflated relative to averaged momentary ratings. Across most items, 1-day recall corresponded well to the averaged momentary assessments for the day. Several, but not all, items demonstrated substantial correlations across the different reporting periods. An additional 7 day-by-day recall task suggested that patients have increasing difficulty actually remembering symptom levels beyond the past several days. These data were collected while patients were receiving usual care and may not generalize to conditions where new interventions are being introduced and outcomes evaluated. Reporting periods can influence the accuracy of retrospective symptom reports and should be a consideration in study design.

A significant number of subjects did not obtain saliva samples reliably in an ambulatory setting. This can partially invalidate the cortisol results and mask potential differences between subject groups of interest. We therefore recommend the use of electronic monitoring devices or other suitable methods and that study participants be informed about the device when ambulatory saliva collection is performed.

Patient self-reports are the primary method for capturing the experience of pain, and diaries are often used to collect patient self-reports. This study was designed to determine if momentary monitoring of pain with an electronic diary affected pain levels over time, if it affected weekly recall of pain, and if daily sampling density affected compliance rates and patients' reactions to the study. Ninety-one patients with chronic pain were randomized into four groups with differing levels of momentary monitoring over 2 weeks. Little support was found for reactivity defined as temporal shifts in pain over the study or as changes in recalled weekly pain due to momentary monitoring. Compliance with the electronic diary protocol was 94% or better, and was not related to sampling density. Patients reported little difficulty with the diary procedures and were not unduly burdened by the protocol.

A multisite, randomized, controlled clinical effectiveness trial was conducted for osteoarthritis patients with chronic pain of the knee or hip. Adult health nurse practitioners provided a 10-session intervention, pain coping skills training (PCST), in patients’ doctors’ offices (N = 129 patients); the control group received usual care (N = 127 patients). Primary outcomes assessed at baseline, posttreatment, 6-month follow-up, and 12-month follow-up were: pain intensity, physical functioning, psychological distress, self-efficacy, catastrophizing, use of coping strategies, and quality of life. Secondary measures included fatigue, social functioning, health satisfaction, and use of pain medication. Methods favoring external validity, consistent with pragmatic, effectiveness research, were utilized. Primary ITT and secondary per-protocol analyses were conducted. Attrition was within the expected range: 11% at posttreatment and 29% at 12-month follow-up; rates did not differ between groups. Omnibus ITT analyses across all assessment points indicated significant improvement for the PCST group compared with the control group for pain intensity, physical functioning, psychological distress, use of pain coping strategies, and self-efficacy, as well as fatigue, satisfaction with health, and reduced use of pain medication. Treatment effects were robust to covariates (demographics and clinical sites). Trends in the outcomes across the assessments were examined. All outcomes, except for self-efficacy, were maintained through the 12-month follow-up; effects for self-efficacy degraded over time. Per-protocol analyses did not yield greater effect sizes. Comparisons of PCST patients who were more vs less treatment adherent suggested greater effectiveness for patients with high adherence. Results support the effectiveness of nurse practitioner delivery of PCST for chronic osteoarthritis pain.

No abstract