Typology of pain coping and associations with physical health, mental health, and pain profiles in Hong Kong Chinese older adults

• Published in: Aging & mental health Vol. 25; no. 11; pp. 2169 - 2177
• Main Authors: Cheng, Sheung-Tak, Chen, Phoon Ping, Mok, Monique H. T., Chow, Yu Fat, Chung, Joanne W. Y., Law, Alexander C. B., Lee, Jenny S. W., Leung, Edward M. F., Tam, Cindy W. C.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Routledge 02-11-2021; Taylor & Francis Ltd
• Subjects: Activities of daily living; Adults; Basis; Chinese; Chronic illnesses; Chronic pain; Coping; Coping strategies; Disability; Emotions; Functional impairment; Geriatric psychiatry; Health status; Illnesses; Latent class analysis; Low income groups; Mental depression; Mental health; older adults; Older people; Pain; Physical ability; Quality of life; Self evaluation; Typology; Hong Kong China; China; older adults; Chinese; Pain; coping
• ISSN: 1360-7863; 1364-6915
• DOI: 10.1080/13607863.2020.1821171

To identify typology of pain coping in older adults and to see whether the coping types or patterns were associated with pain, physical health, and mental health outcomes.
Six hundred and fifty six Chinese older adults were recruited on a convenience basis from social centers in Hong Kong. A 14-item Brief Pain Coping Scale (BPCS) was constructed on the basis of the Chronic Pain Coping Inventory. Outcome measures included pain intensity, pain disability, pain-related cognitions, depressive symptoms, health-related quality of life, and health and physical functioning (in terms of chronic illnesses, basic and instrumental activities of daily living, and self-rated health). Coping typology was identified using latent class analysis.
A 3-class solution based on BPCS provided the best fit to data. Class 1 used almost all coping strategies on a daily basis, Class 2 used the strategies less frequently, whereas Class 3 adopted few strategies. Yet, Class 3 was basically indistinguishable from Class 1 across the outcome variables, even though the participants had more chronic illnesses and poorer instrumental activities of daily living than those in Class 1. Class 2, however, had the poorest outcome profiles, reporting more pain, disability, depression, and health-related quality of life than the other two classes. The differences in coping could not be explained by the differential effectiveness of coping strategies across groups.
The way coping was used, and the way it was related to pain, mood, health and functioning outcomes, varied substantially across individuals. Implications for coping skills interventions are discussed.