Background: The Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) is a widely used self-report tool to evaluate pain related catastrophizing. The PCS was developed using classical test theory and has been shown to be psychometrically sound among various populations. However, it's current three subscales are rarely used in clinical practice, offering potential for an abbreviated version that reduces administrative burden and can be used to estimate full scale scores, yet is not bound by the inclusion of items from each subscale. Hence, the aim of the current study was to develop a unidimensional abbreviated version of the PCS through findings from qualitative, classical test theory, and newer Rasch analysis. Methods: The current cross-sectional study used data from the Quebec Pain Registry (n = 5646) to obtain PCS scores of people seeking care at tertiary chronic pain centres. To develop an abbreviated unidimensional tool, items were removed based on triangulation of qualitative review of each item and response, corrected item-total correlations, and Rasch analysis. Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted on the final remaining items to confirm the tool was assessing a single latent construct (catastrophizing). Fit was assessed using the cumulative fit index (CFI), Tucker Lewis Index (TLI), and root-mean-squared error of approximation (RMSEA). Results: After triangulation, a final abbreviated 4-item scale showed adequate model fit with a strong correlation (r > 0.95) with the original scale and properties that were stable across age, sex, cause, and medicolegal status. Additionally, the brief version addressed some problematic wording on some items on the original scale. Both the original and new abbreviated tool were associated with the Beck Depression Inventory and the Brief Pain Inventory at the same magnitude. Conclusion: The abbreviated scale may allow for a decrease in administrator burden and greater clinical uptake when a quick screen for exaggerated negative orientation towards pain is needed.

Objective The Traumatic Injuries Distress Scale (TIDS) is a 12-item self-report tool intended for prognostic risk phenotyping in people with acute musculoskeletal (MSK) trauma. The initial validation study showed good associations with outcomes 12 weeks later in a cohort of 72 acutely injured patients from one region in Canada. This study aims to provide further clinical utility through identification of meaningful cut scores in a larger, mixed geography sample, and expands the prediction window from 12 to 52 weeks. Methods Data were drawn from databanks in London, Canada and Chicago, United States. Participants were recruited within 3 weeks of non-catastrophic MSK trauma and followed for 12 months. Using outcomes trajectories, the TIDS underwent linear regression-based analysis to predict 52-week outcomes, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curves to identify discriminative accuracy and meaningful cut scores. Results N = 224 participants with acute trauma were followed and both %Interference and Pain Severity were captured at intake and 3 follow-ups to establish curvilinear recovery trajectories. The TIDS explained significant variance in both the interference and severity outcomes after controlling for sex, region of injury, and baseline scores. ROC analysis revealed significant discriminative accuracy for predicting both the trajectories and the distal outcomes over 52 weeks. The TIDS was more accurate for identifying the low-risk than high-risk patients. Conclusion The TIDS is a useful tool for ‘ruling out’ high risk of poor outcome in a mixed sample of participants from two different countries. Impact statement The TIDS will be a useful tool for clinicians to predict the rate of recovery by displaying meaningful cut-scores for their patients after an acute musculoskeletal injury. This could lead to reduced burden of care for low risk patients and more informed treatment options for higher risk patients.

No abstract

Background Much of the work in post‐musculoskeletal (MSK) trauma and distress has been conducted through frameworks that start from the injury and go forward to better understand the trajectories and predictors of recovery. However, stress–diatheses models suggest that reactions to trauma are shaped by pre‐existing experiences of the person more than the parameters of the event itself. In this study, we explore the effects of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) on traumatic threat appraisal, distress and pain‐related functional interference in adulthood. Methods Adult participants with acute, non‐catastrophic musculoskeletal trauma completed a battery of questionnaires that included the Adverse Childhood Experiences Questionnaire (ACEQ), the Brief Illness Perceptions Questionnaire (BIPQ), the Traumatic Injuries Distress Scale (TIDS) and the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI). An a priori model was evaluated through path analysis to determine the variance in BPI Interference scores explained through direct or indirect pathways between these variables (ACEQ‐>BIPQ, BIPQ‐>TIDS, TIDS‐>BPI). The analysis was repeated for the sample when disaggregated by sex. Results In n = 114, the base model was saturated. After removing non‐significant pathways, the ACEQ‐>BIPQ‐>TIDS‐>BPI paths were significant and in the expected direction, explaining 57.1% of variance in acute BPI Interference score. When disaggregated by sex, the effect of ACEs on threat appraisal was only significant in men and not women, although this analysis was exploratory. Conclusions Acute pain‐related interference could be predicted by post‐traumatic distress and threat appraisal. Threat appraisal could be further predicted through ACEs, more childhood adversities were associated with more threatening appraisal of trauma in adulthood. The disaggregated finding that the effects of childhood adversities were only significant in males requires further exploration. Significance This study explores the potential pathways of the stress–diathesis model while focusing on adverse childhood experiences as a novel contribution to the field of acute post‐trauma pain. The findings may inform future research design and interpretation of acute‐to‐chronic pain risk stratification tools.

No abstract