Journal Information
Vol. 29. Issue S1.
II ABRAPG-FT Student Conference
(1 November 2025)
Vol. 29. Issue S1.
II ABRAPG-FT Student Conference
(1 November 2025)
228
Full text access
AGE AND ANXIETY WERE ASSOCIATED WITH INEFFICIENT PAIN MODULATION IN PATIENTS WITH MUSCULOSKELETAL PAIN
Visits
112
Juliana Valentim Bittencourta, Jéssica Pinto Martins do Rioa, Leticia Amaral Corrêaa,b, Pedro Teixeira Vidinha Rodriguesa, Felipe José Jandre Reisc, Leandro Alberto Calazans Nogueiraa,c
a Rehabilitation Science Postgraduate Program, Centro Universitário Augusto Motta (UNISUAM), Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
b Department of Chiropractic, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
c Physiotherapy Department, Centro Universitário Augusto Motta (UNISUAM), Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
This item has received
Article information
Special issue
This article is part of special issue:
Vol. 29. Issue S1

II ABRAPG-FT Student Conference

More info
Background

Conditioned pain modulation is a crucial physiological mechanism for regulating pain perception. Age, body mass index, and psychosocial status (i.e., symptoms of anxiety, social isolation, perceived stress, catastrophising, kinesiophobia, and symptoms of depression) may influence the efficiency of this mechanism. However, these elements are commonly investigated separately.

Objectives

The current study evaluated the relationship between demographic features and psychosocial status and the efficiency of conditioned pain modulation in participants with and without musculoskeletal pain. We also investigated the same relationship stratifying by health condition (participants with musculoskeletal pain and asymptomatic individuals).

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted with 100 patients with musculoskeletal pain and 100 asymptomatic individuals. Participants answered questionnaires about sociodemographic characteristics and psychosocial status (Brief Screening Questions and Brief Psychological Screening Questions). The cold pressor test was the psychophysical method used to assess conditioned pain modulation. The difference between pre-and post-test pressure pain threshold values calculated conditioned pain modulation efficiency. Negative values indicated conditioned pain modulation inefficiency, while null or positive values were considered a typical conditioned pain modulation response. A logistic regression model was fitted to examine the relationship between independent variables (demographic features and psychosocial status) and the conditioned pain modulation efficiency.

Results

The mean age of the sample was 33.17 (±16.78) years, and the mean body mass index was 25.75 (±5.46) kg/m². The symptomatic group had significantly higher age [symptomatic = 40.53 ± 19.51, asymptomatic = 25.74 ± 8.58; p < 0.001] and body mass index [symptomatic = 26.56 ± 5.81, asymptomatic = 24.93 ± 4.98; p = 0.035] than the asymptomatic group. Conditioned pain modulation was inefficient in 43 (21.50%) of the sample. Age (OR = 1.03; 95% CI: 1.01–1.05) was the only variable associated with inefficient pain modulation, considering the total group. Symptoms of anxiety (OR = 3.99; 95% CI: 1.05–15.1) and age (OR = 1.03; 95% CI: 1.00–1.06) were associated with inefficient pain modulation among the symptomatic group.

Conclusion

Increasing age and greater levels of anxiety higher the likelihood of presenting inefficient pain modulation in participants with musculoskeletal pain. The findings suggest that symptoms of anxiety are the strongest psychosocial predictor of pain response.

Implications

Psychosocial status should be incorporated into pain management in clinical practice, allowing for more individualised approaches. In addition, addressing symptoms of anxiety may be crucial for contributing to regulating pain perception.

Keywords:
Diffuse Noxious Inhibitory Control
Musculoskeletal Pain
Observational Study
Full text is only available in PDF

Conflict of interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Funding: This study was financed in part by the FAPERJ [Grant: E-26/211.104/2021; E-26/200.179/2025 e 200.180/2025 (304979)] and CAPES [Finance Code 001; Grant: 88881.708719/2022-01 and grant: 88887.708718/2022-00].

Ethics committee approval: No. 5.690.291.

Registration: Not applicable.

Download PDF
Idiomas
Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy
Article options
Tools