Chronic Pain, Couples, & Physical Activity

October 6, 2023 updated by: Illinois Institute of Technology

Need Supportive Interpersonal Behaviors and Physical Activity in the Context of Couples and Chronic Pain

Chronic pain affects more than 50 million adults in the United States and is estimated to cost the nation more than $560 billion dollars each year. Regular physical activity is widely recognized as essential for maintaining health for all individuals, but is particularly important for individuals with chronic pain (ICPs) as physical activity can prevent further deconditioning and may even improve pain outcomes. Previous literature has shown that certain categories of partner behaviors (e.g., solicitous, punishing, distracting) are associated with different health outcomes for ICPs, and recently researchers have begun examining partner behaviors through the lens of Self-Determination Theory, specifically looking at the effects of autonomy support from a spouse on physical activity among ICPs. Partner autonomy support has been positively associated with physical activity levels and better health outcomes, but no studies to date have explored what factors predict whether or not a partner will use an autonomy supportive interpersonal style (as opposed to a controlling interpersonal style) with the ICP.

Similarly, more research is needed on the mechanisms by which autonomy support promotes positive outcomes for ICPs. Though receiving autonomy support has been linked to increased physical activity and improved mental health, no studies have yet tested the full Self-Determination Theory model as one possible explanation of the link between this form of partner support and desirable health outcomes. In particular, it is important to understand the ICP's perspective on how partner autonomy support influences need satisfaction and autonomous motivation as possible mediators between autonomy support and ICP physical activity. Furthermore, little research has explored other need supportive behaviors or their need frustrating counterparts. The current study will not only provide greater understanding of autonomy support, but will also expand the literature regarding these other need supportive and need thwarting behaviors.

Lastly, given the value of need supportive behaviors from one's partner, it is essential to evaluate how partner perceptions of those need supportive behaviors align with ICP's perceptions of those behaviors. Any need support a partner provides is likely moderated by the ICP's perception of that support.

Study Overview

Status

Terminated

Conditions

Intervention / Treatment

Detailed Description

Chronic pain affects more than 50 million adults in the United States and is estimated to cost the nation more than $560 billion dollars each year. Regular physical activity is widely recognized as essential for maintaining health for all individuals, but is particularly important for individuals with chronic pain (ICPs) as physical activity can prevent further deconditioning and may even improve pain outcomes. Previous literature has shown that certain categories of partner behaviors (e.g., solicitous, punishing, distracting) are associated with different health outcomes for ICPs, and recently researchers have begun examining partner behaviors through the lens of Self-Determination Theory, specifically looking at the effects of autonomy support from a spouse on physical activity among ICPs. Partner autonomy support has been positively associated with physical activity levels and better health outcomes, but no studies to date have explored what factors predict whether or not a partner will use an autonomy supportive interpersonal style (as opposed to a controlling interpersonal style) with the ICP.

Similarly, more research is needed on the mechanisms by which autonomy support promotes positive outcomes for ICPs. Though receiving autonomy support has been linked to increased physical activity and improved mental health, no studies have yet tested the full Self-Determination Theory model as one possible explanation of the link between this form of partner support and desirable health outcomes. In particular, it is important to understand the ICP's perspective on how partner autonomy support influences need satisfaction and autonomous motivation as possible mediators between autonomy support and ICP physical activity. Furthermore, little research has explored other need supportive behaviors or their need frustrating counterparts. The current study will not only provide greater understanding of autonomy support, but will also expand the literature regarding these other need supportive and need thwarting behaviors.

Lastly, given the value of need supportive behaviors from one's partner, it is essential to evaluate how partner perceptions of those need supportive behaviors align with ICP's perceptions of those behaviors. Any need support a partner provides is likely moderated by the ICP's perception of that support.

Self-determination theory (SDT) posits that contextual, perceptual, and individual factors may influence how much an individual uses an autonomy supportive interpersonal style through the mediators of basic psychological need satisfaction and on autonomous motivation.

The present study used path analysis to test a SDT model of the relationships between a contextual factor (autonomy support from health care provider), a perceptual factor (partner's perception of ICP motivation for physical activity), an individual factor (partner catastrophizing about ICP's pain), and the sequential mediators of relationship need satisfaction and autonomous motivation with respect to the dependent variable of partner's use of an autonomy supportive interpersonal style.

Study Type

Observational

Enrollment (Actual)

400

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Contact

Study Locations

  • United States
    • Illinois
      • Chicago, Illinois, United States, 60616
        • Illinois Institute of Technology

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

18 years and older (Adult, Older Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Yes

Sampling Method

Non-Probability Sample

Study Population

The study will survey couples where one individual has a chronic musculoskeletal pain condition. Couples will be recruited from convenience samples via community organizations, support groups for individuals with chronic pain, and pain management service providers.

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Currently in a relationship for at least 1 year or more.
  • Both individuals in the relationship are 18 years or older.
  • One individual in the relationship identifies as having a chronic musculoskeletal pain condition.

Exclusion Criteria:

  • One or both individuals are 17 years old or younger.
  • Neither individual identifies as having a chronic musculoskeletal pain condition.

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

Cohorts and Interventions

Group / Cohort
Intervention / Treatment
Individuals with Chronic Pain
Individuals who identify as having a chronic musculoskeletal pain condition.
Other: No intervention, observational only.
No intervention, this study will use self-report information regarding health, social, and behavioral factors for each member of the couple.
Partners
Partners (e.g., life partner, spouse, or significant other) of the individual with the chronic musculoskeletal pain condition.
Other: No intervention, observational only.
No intervention, this study will use self-report information regarding health, social, and behavioral factors for each member of the couple.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Physical Activity as Assessed by the Physical Activity Scale for Individuals with Physical Disabilities [PASIPD]
Time Frame: Past seven days (Prior to when participant takes cross-sectional survey.)
This 13-item scale measures physical activity among individuals with physical disabilities. Respondents report approximately how much time they engage in 1) home repair and lawn and garden work, 2) housework, 3) vigorous sport and recreation, 4) moderate sport and recreation, and 5) occupation and transportation. Respondents answer on a 4-point Likert scale, with responses ranging from 1 (Never) to 4 (Often) or from 1 (Less than 1 hr) to 4 (More than 4hr). Items 2-13 are used to calculate the total score; the average hours per day in an activity are multiplied by a value of metabolic equivalents (METs, provided with the PASIPD scale), these values are then summed to calculate the total MET hour/day.
Past seven days (Prior to when participant takes cross-sectional survey.)
Use of Need Supportive Interpersonal Behaviors as Assessed by "Interpersonal Behaviors Questionnaire" (Self-report Version) [IBQ-Self]
Time Frame: Up to 2 weeks. Participant will answer while completing cross-sectional survey, for most this is less than 30 minutes, however, participants have up to 2 weeks to complete survey. Participant responds regarding how they usually interact with partner.
The IBQ-Self is a 24-item self-report scale that measures how much an individual engages with others via behaviors that either support or thwart basic psychological needs (autonomy, competence, & relatedness). There are six subscales, each consists of four items, which are summed to provide a subscore, ranging from 4 to 28. Higher scores for a subscale indicate that an individual perceives they use those particular behaviors more frequently. Higher scores for autonomy support, competence support, and relatedness support are considered desirable, while lower scores for autonomy thwarting, competence thwarting, and relatedness thwarting are also viewed as more adaptive. Cronbach's alphas for the six subscales indicate acceptable reliability (αs = 0.77 to 0.82).
Up to 2 weeks. Participant will answer while completing cross-sectional survey, for most this is less than 30 minutes, however, participants have up to 2 weeks to complete survey. Participant responds regarding how they usually interact with partner.

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Frequency of Depressive Symptoms as Assessed by Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D-10)
Time Frame: Past week (Prior to when participant takes cross-sectional survey.)
The CES-D-10 is a self-report measure that assesses depressive symptomatology. Respondents rate items on a 4-point Likert scale describing how often the participant felt or behaved in a certain way during the past week. The responses range from 0 "Rarely or none of the time (less than 1 day)" to 3 "Most or all of the time (5-7 days)." A total score on the CES-D-10 is yielded by summing the scores for all items, and may range from 0 to 30. A score of 10 or greater is used as a screening cutoff to indicate the presence of depression. Lower scores indicate fewer depressive symptoms and are considered desirable. The scale has good reliability, a = 0.89.
Past week (Prior to when participant takes cross-sectional survey.)
Frequency of Anxiety Symptoms as Assessed by GAD-7
Time Frame: Past 2 weeks (Prior to when participant takes cross-sectional survey.)
The GAD-7 is a 7-item self-report measure that assesses symptomatology consistent with generalized anxiety disorder. Each item is rated on a 4-point Likert scale describing how often the participant has experienced possible symptoms. The responses range from 0 "Not at all" to 3 "Nearly every day." Total scores are calculated for the GAD-7 by summing all the items, and may range from 0 to 21. Lower scores indicate fewer anxiety symptoms and are indicative of greater wellbeing. A cut point score of 10 or higher has been shown to have good specificity (89%) and sensitivity (82%) for identifying individuals with and without generalized anxiety disorder. The GAD-7 has demonstrated good internal consistency, with Cronbach's alpha at 0.92.
Past 2 weeks (Prior to when participant takes cross-sectional survey.)
Use of Need Supportive Interpersonal Behaviors as Assessed by Interpersonal Behaviors Questionnaire (Other-report Version) [IBQ-Other]
Time Frame: Up to 2 weeks. Participant will answer while completing cross-sectional survey, for most this is less than 30 minutes, however, participants have up to 2 weeks to complete survey. Participant responds regarding how partner typically interacts with them.
The IBQ-Other is a 24-item self-report scale that measures how an individual perceives others' interactions with them in terms of supporting or thwarting the respondent's basic psychological needs (autonomy, competence & relatedness). There are six subscales, each consists of four items, which are summed to provide a subscore ranging from 4 to 28. Higher scores for a subscale indicate that an individual perceives that people they interact with use those particular behaviors more frequently. Higher scores for autonomy support, competence support, relatedness support, and lower scores for autonomy thwarting, competence thwarting, and relatedness thwarting are considered desirable. Cronbach's alphas for the six subscales indicate acceptable reliability (αs = 0.75 to 0.89).
Up to 2 weeks. Participant will answer while completing cross-sectional survey, for most this is less than 30 minutes, however, participants have up to 2 weeks to complete survey. Participant responds regarding how partner typically interacts with them.

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Illinois Institute of Technology

Investigators

  • Principal Investigator: Eun-Jeong Lee, PhD, Illinois Institute of Technology

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

General Publications

Helpful Links

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

April 9, 2019

Primary Completion (Actual)

December 30, 2020

Study Completion (Actual)

December 30, 2020

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

August 5, 2019

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

August 30, 2019

First Posted (Actual)

September 4, 2019

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Estimated)

October 9, 2023

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

October 6, 2023

Last Verified

October 1, 2023

More Information

Terms related to this study

Keywords

Additional Relevant MeSH Terms

Other Study ID Numbers

  • IRB#2019-027

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

UNDECIDED

IPD Plan Description

Currently there are no plans to share IPD with other researchers.

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Osteoarthritis

Clinical Trials on No intervention, observational only.

Search Similar Trials

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

CROs by country

CROs in Vietnam

Conditions

Rare Diseases

Drug Interventions

Dietary Supplements

Sponsor/Collaborators

Locations

3
Subscribe