Despite increasing interest in the attentional biases of pain patients towards pain-related stimuli, there have been no investigations of whether the main caregivers of chronic pain patients also selectively attend to pain-related information. We compared the attentional biases to painful or happy faces of 120 chronic pain patients, 118 caregivers, and 50 controls. Analyses found that both patients and caregivers demonstrated biases towards painful faces that were not observed in control participants or to happy faces. Those patients and caregivers who were high in fear of pain demonstrated greater biases than those low in fear of pain, and the biases of the high-in-fear-of-pain group differed significantly from zero. When sub-groups of caregivers were compared, it was found that biases towards painful faces were not observed for those caregivers who accurately identified the level of pain the patient currently reported. In contrast, those caregivers who overestimated or underestimated the patients' pain demonstrated biases that were significantly greater than zero. These results add to the growing weight of evidence suggesting that biases towards pain-related stimuli are observed in chronic pain patients, but that the nature of the stimuli is important. In addition, the results suggest that caregivers, particularly those who either under- or overestimate the level of pain that the patient reports, also demonstrate similar biases. Future research should investigate the links between caregivers' biases and the way in which caregivers respond to pain.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to wide-scale changes in societal organization. This has dramatically altered people's daily activities, especially among families with young children, those living with disabilities such as spinal cord injury (SCI), those who have experienced a stroke, and older adults. Objective: We aim to (1) investigate how COVID-19 restrictions influence daily activities, (2) track the psychosocial effects of these restrictions over time, and (3) identify strategies to mitigate the potential negative effects of these restrictions. Methods: This is a longitudinal, concurrent, mixed methods study being conducted in British Columbia (BC), Canada Data collection occurred at four time points, between April 2020 and February 2021. The first three data collection time points occurred within phases 1 to 3 of the Province of BC's Restart Plan. The final data collection coincided with the initial distribution of the COVID-19 vaccines. At each time point, data regarding participants' sociodemographics, depressive and anxiety symptoms, resilience, boredom, social support, instrumental activities of daily living, and social media and technology use were collected in an online survey. These data supplemented qualitative videoconference interviews exploring participants' COVID-19-related experiences. Participants were also asked to upload photos representing their experience during the restriction period, which facilitated discussion during the final interview. Five groups of participants were recruited: (1) families with children under the age of 18 years, (2) adults with an SCI, (3) adults who experienced a stroke, (4) adults with other types of disabilities, and (5) older adults (>64 years of age) with no self-reported disability. The number of participants we could recruit from each group was limited, which may impact the validity of some subgroup analyses. Results: This study was approved by the University of British Columbia Behavioural Research Ethics Board (Approval No. H20-01109) on April 17, 2020. A total of 81 participants were enrolled in this study and data are being analyzed. Data analyses are expected to be completed in fall 2021; submission of multiple papers for publication is expected by winter 2021. Conclusions: Findings from our study will inform the development and recommendations of a new resource guide for the post-COVID-19 period and for future public health emergencies.

This study hypothesized that higher caregiving demands are related to higher perceived injustice. Furthermore, this study investigated the mediating role of perceived injustice in the link between caregiving demands and caregivers’ psychological well-being. A cross-sectional design. The Pain Centre of the university medical centre. Participants were 184 family caregivers of patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Participants completed questionnaires that assessed caregiving demands (i.e. The Dutch Objective Burden Inventory), perceived injustice (i.e. The Injustice Experience Questionnaire), how much they considered different sources responsible for the injustice they experienced (i.e. A newly developed inventory), perceived burden (i.e. The Zarit Burden Interview), distress (i.e. The Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale), and anger (i.e. The Hostility subscale of the Symptom Checklist-90-Revised). The findings showed that caregiving demands are significantly related to perceived injustice in family caregivers (r = .44; P < .001). Only a small group of family caregivers considered the patient or themselves responsible, but more than half of the caregivers considered healthcare providers at least somewhat responsible for the unjust situation. Finally, perceived injustice mediated the association between caregiving demands and burden (b = .11, CI: .04-.23) and distress (b = .05, CI: .006-.12), but not anger (b = .008, CI: -.01-.06). The findings suggest that perceived injustice plays an important role in the well-being of family caregivers and caregivers’ well-being may be improved by changing their perceptions about their caregiving tasks and their condition.

Children of parents with chronic pain have higher rates of pain and internalizing (eg, anxiety and depressive) symptoms than children of parents without chronic pain. Parental modeling of pain behaviour and reinforcement of child pain have been hypothesized to underlie these relationships. These mechanisms were tested in a sample of 72 parents with chronic pain and their children (aged 8-15 years). Standardized measures were completed by parents (pain characteristics, pain interference, and child internalizing) and children (pain catastrophizing, pain over previous 3 months, and internalizing). In a laboratory session, children completed the cold pressor task in the presence of their parent, and parent–child verbalizations were coded. Significant indirect effects of parental pain interference on child self-reported (B = 0.12, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.01-0.29) and parent-reported (B = 0.16, 95% CI: 0.03-0.40) internalizing symptoms through child pain catastrophizing were found (parental modeling mechanism), and were not moderated by child chronic pain status. Significant indirect effects were found between parent pain-attending verbalizations and child self-reported (B = 2.58, 95% CI: 1.03-5.31) and parent-reported (B = 2.18, 95% CI: 0.93-4.27) cold pressor task pain intensity and tolerance (B = −1.02, 95% CI: −1.92 to −0.42) through child pain-attending verbalizations (parental reinforcement mechanism). Although further understanding of the temporal relationships between these variables is needed, the current study identifies constructs (eg, parent pain interference, child pain catastrophizing, and parent reinforcement of child pain) that should be further examined as potential targets for prevention and intervention of pain and internalizing symptoms in children of parents with chronic pain.

Objectives: This study investigated the mediating role of pain behaviours in the association between pain catastrophising and pain intensity and explored the moderating role of family caregivers’ responses to pain in the link between pain behaviours and pain intensity. Methods: The sample consisted of 154 chronic pain patients and their family caregivers. Patients completed questionnaires regarding pain intensity, pain catastrophising, pain behaviours and their caregivers’ responses to their pain. Family caregivers reported their responses to the patients’ pain. Results: Pain catastrophising was associated with pain intensity (r = 0.37) and pain behaviours partly mediated this association. The positive association between pain behaviours and pain intensity was significant only if patients reported that their family caregivers showed high levels of solicitous (effect = .49) and distracting responses (effect = .58), and if caregivers reported to show high levels of solicitous responses (effect = .51). No support was found for negative responses as a moderator neither based on patients’ perception of negative responses nor based on caregivers’ perception of negative responses. Conclusions: The findings are in line with the idea that family caregivers’ solicitous and distracting responses convey to patients that their condition is serious, which may reinforce patients’ pain and pain behaviours, especially in those who catastrophise.

O provide further evidence for the presence of attentional bias to pain among family caregivers, to examine the association between caregivers' attentional bias to pain and detecting pain behaviors, and test whether caregivers' attentional bias to pain is curvilinearly related to patient and caregiver disagreement in reporting pain behaviors. The sample consisted of 96 caregivers, 94 patients with chronic pain, and 42 control participants. Caregivers and controls completed a dot-probe task assessing attention to painful and happy stimuli. Both patients and caregivers completed a checklist assessing patients' pain behavior. Although caregivers did not respond faster to pain congruent than pain incongruent trials, caregiver responses were slower in pain incongruent trials compared with happy incongruent trials. Caregivers showed more bias toward pain faces than happy faces, whereas control participants showed more bias toward happy faces than pain faces. Importantly, caregivers' attentional bias to pain was significantly positively associated with reporting pain behaviors in patients above and beyond pain severity. It is reassuring that attentional bias to pain was not related to disagreement between patients and caregivers in reporting pain behaviors. In other words, attentional bias does not seem to cause overestimation of pain signals....