Keywords:
Chronic Pain - Cognition - Caregivers - Elderly
Palavras-chave:
Dor Crônica - Cognição - Cuidadores - Idosos
INTRODUCTION
Some studies have suggested that chronic pain may compromise cognitive performance,
which would thus show that there is a good correlation between brain processing of
pain and other cognitive functions[1],[2]. Based on these findings, it has been proposed that focusing on pain may be a cumulative
process that happens over the years and that this may have a significant impact on
cognitive performance regarding daily activities[3], such as social relationships and caregiving[4],[5].
Informal caregivers are defined as people who provide continuous unpaid care, in relation
to daily or instrumental activities, for an individual with an illness or chronic
disability[6]. The older a caregiver is, the more predisposed this individual may be towards having
symptoms of overload and stress and developing pain, due to the task of caring[7],[8],[9]. In addition, it should be taken into account that there is an increasing number
of elderly people who are also taking care of another elderly person in the same household.
Among these individuals, the presence of chronic pain associated with poor cognitive
performance may negatively interfere with basic and complex activities aimed towards
caring for another elderly person[10],[11],[12].
Investigation of this topic is crucial because of the scarcity of studies in this
area and the need to possibly establish a relation between chronic pain, cognition,
aging and the act of caregiving. Assessment of cognitive processing, together with
use of standardized neuropsychological evaluation tools, may be an effective way to
study the relationship between chronic pain and cognition. It is fundamental to include
a group of non-caregivers in the analyses since there are no conclusive studies analyzing
the relationship between chronic pain and cognition in the population of elderly caregivers.
Therefore, the objective of this study was to compare the performance and cognitive
processing of elderly caregivers and non-caregivers with and without chronic pain.
METHODS
Participants
The sample consisted of elderly people registered at primary healthcare services in
the city of São Carlos, São Paulo, Brazil. A total of 149 individuals participated
in the study, divided into four groups: 44 caregivers with chronic pain (CP), 44 non-caregivers
with chronic pain (NP), 31 caregivers without pain (CWP) and 30 non-caregivers without
pain (NWP). The groups were matched according to sex, age and educational level.
The sample size was calculated based on a pilot study that was conducted among eight
elderly caregivers enrolled in primary healthcare units, from which the alpha level
of significance at 5% and the power of the sample at 80% were established.
Inclusion criteria
Participants were required to be older than 60 years and to be registered as a resident
in an urban or rural area monitored by Family Health Units (FHUs). The individuals
selected were divided into two subgroups: caregivers and non-caregivers. To be in
the caregiver group, the individual needed to be the primary informal caregiver of
another elderly person living in the same house. The person being cared for was required
to be dependent in at least one of the basic activities of daily living (BADLs)[13] and instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs)[14]. The elderly caregiver was also assessed regarding BADLs and IADLs and was required
to be more independent than the person being cared for. To be included in the non-caregiver
group, the person would need to have not provided any type of care to another elderly
person in the last 12 months and would need to be living alone or with a non-elderly
family member at the time of the study.
In addition, the subjects were classified according to the presence of chronic pain:
caregivers with vs. without chronic pain. To establish the existence of chronic pain,
the inclusion criterion was a report of continuous or frequent pain in any body region
for a period greater than or equal to six months[15].
Exclusion criteria
A preliminary interview was conducted in the first stage of the research and individuals
who presented evident severe cognitive deficits, severe hearing problems or histories
of stroke, alcoholism or psychoactive drug abuse were excluded.
Data collection procedures
Data were collected between June 2016 and July 2017 in two stages: In the first stage,
previously trained interviewers visited the elderly people who were registered in
the FHUs, at their homes, and verified the inclusion and exclusion criteria. If the
criteria were met, the individual’s caregiver was invited to participate in the study
and, after acceptance, the instruments of sociodemographic characterization, health
evaluation and care provided were applied. In the second stage, auditory event-related
potentials[16],[17] and standardized neuropsychological tests (Brief Cognitive Battery[18],[19] and Addenbrooke’s Cognitive Examination Revised[20]) were applied. Among individuals with chronic pain, the variables investigated were
the intensity of pain (at the time of the evaluation and in the previous week), number
of years with pain and location of pain. All procedures and tests were conducted in
a quiet and peaceful environment in a community room, to facilitate participant access.
To collect data, a sociodemographic instrument asking about the variables of gender
(female or male), age and years of schooling was used. For the caregiver group, information
about the degree of kinship with the elderly person being cared for, the length of
time as a caregiver (1-4 years; 5-9 years; or ≥10 years) and the number of care hours
provided per day (1-4 hours; 5-9 hours; or ≥10 hours) were also collected.
To evaluate cognitive performance, two standardized neuropsychological tests were
used. The Brief Cognitive Screening Battery (BCSB) comprises the domains of visual
perception and nomination, incidental memory, immediate memory, learning, verbal fluency
(animals), clock design, five-minute memory and recognition, which are evaluated by
means of figures presented to participants. In the immediate memory, scores below
5 indicate impaired attention; in the learning memory, the participant is expected
to obtain a score of 7 or more; in delayed memory at least 6 points and in recognition
memory scores close to 9[18],[19]. Addenbrooke’s Cognitive Examination Revised (ACE-R) evaluates five domains of cognitive
functioning. The total score ranges from 0 to 100 and is distributed among the five
domains: orientation/attention (18 points), memory (26 points), verbal fluency (14
points), language (26 points) and visual skills (16 points). The higher the score
is, the better the cognitive performance is[20].
To evaluate pain intensity, an 11-point numerical scale (0 representing no pain and
10, an unbearable pain) was used. The pain intensity of the last week and the pain
intensity at the time of the interview were evaluated (continuous scale). A body diagram
was used, in which the participant visually indicated the locations affected by the
pain (39 locations)[21].
The Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS-15) was used to evaluate depression symptoms,
with the aim of assessing depression symptoms in the elderly. It is composed of 15
dichotomous “yes” or “no” questions. The score ranges from zero to 15, where scores
from 0 to 5 indicate no depressive symptoms, 6 to 10 mild depressive symptoms and
11 to 15 severe depressive symptom. For the present study, a continuous score was
used, such that higher scores indicating more depressive symptoms[22].
Cognitive processing was also assessed by using event-related potentials (ERPs) obtained
from electroencephalograms (EEGs). These were run during an auditory oddball task.
Three-channel EEGs were recorded on a clinical device (Neurosoft; model Neuron-Spectrum-4/EPM).
Electrodes were attached in accordance with the standard 10/20 system, on the frontal
(Fz), central (Cz) and parietal (Pz) scalp regions. Reference electrodes were placed
on the right (A2) and left (A1) earlobes and were interconnected, as recommended by
the American Clinical Neurophysiology Society[16]. In addition, to monitor and subsequently eliminate out-of-brain artifacts, two
additional electrodes (bipolar montage), positioned in the corner of the left eye
and over the eyebrow of the right eye, were used to capture eye movements[16],[17].
The task performed by the subject consisted of pressing a button with the dominant
hand for each infrequent (target) stimulus detected. An initial training session was
given with a presentation of some auditory stimuli, so that the individual understood
the examination dynamics and to ensure that all participants understood the task.
During the auditory oddball task, 60 infrequent target auditory stimuli (20% of the
times; 2000 Hz pure tone lasting 100 ms) and 240 frequent non-target stimuli (80%
of the times; 1000 Hz) were randomly presented to the participants every two seconds
(inter-stimulus interval). The impedance of all the electrodes was maintained below
5 KΩ. The EEG data were analyzed offline after baseline correction (100 ms before
stimulus onset) and ocular artifacts (eye blinks) were removed using independent component
analysis (ICA). Lastly, the EEG data were separately processed for each condition
(frequent vs infrequent stimuli) with the aim of obtaining amplitude and latency measurements
of the P300 ERP component for each electrode location. The P300 on the Fz, Cz and
Pz channels was detected as the maximum amplitude in the 250-500 ms interval (after
stimulus onset) of the wave obtained by subtracting the average of target (infrequent)
stimuli from the average of non-target (frequent) stimuli. According to previous data
in the literature, higher P300 amplitudes would reflect better cognitive processing
and greater attention[16],[17],[23]. On the other hand, shorter latencies are associated with better information processing[23].
Ethical issues
This project was approved by the Ethics Committee for Research on Human Beings of
the Federal University of São Carlos, under the number CAAE 51773915.1.0000.5504.
All the participants who agreed to participate signed an informed consent form.
Statistical analysis
Means and standard deviations were calculated to describe the demographic and clinical
characteristics of the sample. The chi-square test was used to compare the categorical
variables between the groups. Two-way ANOVA with the factors caregiving and pain was
used to assess between-subject effects regarding cognitive performance in the ACE-R
and BCSB domains. Levene's test was applied to verify data homogeneity (equality of
variances). To assess brain processing (P300 amplitude and latency), repeated-measurements
ANOVA with scalp location (Fz, Cz or Pz) as the within-subject factor and caregiving
and pain as the between-subject factors was used. Mauchly's test was applied to check
the assumption of sphericity. A significance level of 5% was adopted for all statistical
analyses.
RESULTS
Sociodemographic, caregiving and chronic pain characteristics
[Table 1] shows the characteristics of the participants in each group. The groups were similar
regarding gender, age, schooling and characteristics of caregiving and pain. The majority
of the participating caregivers had provided care for their spouse for more than 10
years. The most prevalent body locations with pain were the lumbar region and the
lower limbs, for both groups. The average number of years of pain was approximately
7 years.
Table 1
Descriptive statistics on sociodemographic variables (means and standard deviations)
among the groups, divided according to caregiving and chronic pain characteristics.
|
|
Chronic pain
|
Absence of pain
|
p-value
|
|
•Caregiver
•(n=44)
|
•Non-caregiver
•(n=44)
|
•Caregiver
•(n=31)
|
•Non-caregiver
•(n=30)
|
|
Female*
|
88.6%
|
81.8%
|
74.2%
|
66.7%
|
0.108
|
|
Age in years (mean, SD)**
|
70±5.8
|
71.1±7.4
|
68.7±5.7
|
71.1 ± 7.7
|
0.117
|
|
Years of schooling (mean, SD)**
|
3.7±3.2
|
3.4±2.8
|
4.1±3.5
|
3.8±3.2
|
0.918
|
|
Who is the caregiver?*
|
|
•Spouse
•Mother/father
•Other
|
•90.9%
•2.3%
•6.8%
|
---
|
•87.1%
•6.5%
•6.5%
|
---
|
0.661
|
|
Years of caregiving*
|
|
•1-4
•5-9
•≥10
|
•20.9%
•27.9%
•51.2%
|
---
|
•32.1%
•28.6%
•39.3%
|
---
|
0.507
|
|
Hours of caregiving each day*
|
|
•1-4
•5-9
•≥10
|
•47.7%
•36.4%
•15.9%
|
---
|
•56.7%
•23.3%
•20.0%
|
---
|
0.491
|
|
Intensity of pain (mean, SD)***
|
|
•At the time of the evaluation
•Previous week
|
•4.9±2.5
•6.2±2.6
|
•4.8±2.7
•5.9±2.4
|
•---
•---
|
•---
•---
|
•0.964
•0.505
|
|
Years with pain (mean, SD)***
|
7.5±7.5
|
7.0±7.4
|
---
|
---
|
0.502
|
|
Location of pain*
|
|
•Lumbar region
•Lower limbs
|
•63.6%
•43.1%
|
•47.7%
•50%
|
•---
•---
|
•---
•---
|
•0.123
•0.219
|
|
Depression symptoms (mean, SD)**
|
4.7±2.9
|
3.7±2.6
|
2.5±2.1
|
3.1±2.8
|
0.006#
|
*Chi-square test; **ANOVA test; ***Student’s t-test; #difference between caregivers with chronic pain and caregivers without pain.
Regarding the variable of depressive symptoms, although the average score among the
participants was below the cutoff score of the instrument, a statistical difference
between the CP and CWP groups could be seen (p=0.006), such that the CWP group had
a higher score from the instrument ([Table 1]).
Cognitive performance
[Table 2] shows descriptive statistics on the neuropsychological data obtained using the ACE-R
and BCSB instruments in the four subgroups of participants. Equality of variances
was confirmed for all the ACE-R and BCSB variables. Regarding ACE-R, a two-way ANOVA
test revealed that there were significant differences in the domains of attention/orientation
[F(1,145)=4.07; p=0.045] and visual-spatial skills [F(1,145)=5.8; p=0.017], and also
in the total score [F(1,145)=4.61; p=0.033], which were due to the pain factor. These
findings indicated that individuals without chronic pain presented better cognitive
performance than individuals with chronic pain. No effect on cognitive performance
was observed from the caregiving factor, as assessed via the ACE-R instrument, and
no significant interactions between the caregiving and pain factors were found with
regard to any of the ACE-R variables.
Table 2
Comparison between the domains of Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination Revised and
the Brief Cognitive Screening Battery, according to the caregiving and chronic pain
factors.
|
|
Chronic pain
|
Absence of pain
|
p-value
|
p-value
|
p-value
|
|
•Caregivers
•(n=44)
|
•Non-caregivers
•(n=44)
|
•Caregivers
•(n=31)
|
•Non-caregivers
•(n=30)
|
Pain and no pain*
|
Caregiving and no caregiving*
|
Caregiving and pain*
|
|
ACE-R domains
|
|
Attention/orientation
|
13.02±2.23
|
13.70±2.58
|
14.32±2.18
|
14.03±2.65
|
0.045
|
0.627
|
0.231
|
|
Memory
|
13.09±5.33
|
14.52±5.85
|
16.22±5.73
|
14.46±6.61
|
0.116
|
0.867
|
0.104
|
|
Fluency
|
5.30±2.47
|
5.80±2.84
|
6.83±3.01
|
6.06±3.20
|
0.665
|
0,775
|
0.183
|
|
Language
|
17.97±4.70
|
17.72±5.36
|
20.16±4.76
|
18.30±5.89
|
0.112
|
0.223
|
0.351
|
|
Visual-spatial skills
|
9.43±3.45
|
10.00±3.22
|
11.22±3.67
|
10.96±3.36
|
0.017
|
0.786
|
0.469
|
|
Total score
|
58.84±15.24
|
61.77±17.00
|
68.77±16.12
|
63.83±19.02
|
0.033
|
0.720
|
0.720
|
|
BCSB domains
|
|
Incidental
|
4.34±1.86
|
4.76±2.76
|
4.4±1.63
|
4.46±1.83
|
0.701
|
0.434
|
0.568
|
|
Immediate
|
6.65±1.61
|
6.90±1.93
|
7.23±1.71
|
6.26±1.65
|
0.910
|
0.221
|
0.040
|
|
Learning
|
7.52±2.05
|
7.79±1.69
|
8.26±1.77
|
6.96±1.90
|
0.899
|
0.102
|
0.014
|
|
5 minutes
|
6.25±2.91
|
6.76±2.68
|
7.90±2.02
|
6.70±2.50
|
0.072
|
0.436
|
0.051
|
|
Recognition
|
9.00±1.16
|
9.11±1.38
|
9.40±1.32
|
8.90±1.58
|
0.797
|
0.423
|
0.041
|
*Two-way ANOVA; ACE-R: Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination Revised; BCSB: Brief Cognitive
Screening Battery.
The BCSB instrument was used to find out whether there was any difference between
the groups in the memory domain. Significant interaction between the caregiving and
pain factors was observed, with statistical differences between caregivers and non-caregivers
in the group without chronic pain for three of the memory domains: Immediate [F(1,143)=4.3;
p=0.040], Learning [F(1,143)=6.2; p=0.014] and Recognition [F(1,143)=6.2; p=0.041],
with better results for the caregiver group ([Table 2]).
Cognitive processing
Repeated-measurement ANOVA at the Fz, Pz and Cz scalp locations (within-subject factor)
did not reveal any between-subject effects or interactions (caregiving and pain factors),
or in relation to P300 amplitude or P300 latency. [Table 3] presents in detail the results of this analysis ([Table 3]).
Table 3
Result from the repeated-measurement ANOVA test to compare the groups according to
P300 latency and amplitude in the locations Fz, Pz and Cz.
|
Comparison
|
df
|
F
|
p-value
|
|
Latency (Fz, Pz and Cz) and caregiving
|
1.652
|
0.674
|
0.484
|
|
Latency (Fz, Pz and Cz) and pain
|
1.652
|
0.525
|
0.558
|
|
Latency (Fz, Pz and Cz) and caregiving and pain
|
1.652
|
1.413
|
0.246
|
|
Amplitude (Fz, Pz and Cz) and caregiving
|
1.739
|
0.414
|
0.633
|
|
Amplitude (Fz, Pz and Cz) and pain
|
1.739
|
1.027
|
0.352
|
|
Amplitude (Fz, Pz and Cz) and caregiving and pain
|
1.739
|
1.002
|
0.360
|
Fz: frontal scalp region; Cz: central scalp region; Pz: parietal scalp region.
[Figure 1] shows the means, standard errors and p-values of the groups, according to the P300
latency and amplitude measurements in the Fz, Cz and Pz channels. No statistical differences
between the groups could be seen through performing the one-way ANOVA test.
Figure 1 Comparison between the groups, according to the P300 latency and amplitude measurements
in the Fz, Cz and Pz channels, through means and standard errors.CP: caregivers with
chronic pain (n=44); NP: non-caregivers with chronic pain (n=44); CWP: caregivers
without pain (n=31); NWP: non-caregivers without pain (n=30). Repeated-measurement
ANOVA test.
DISCUSSION
The results showed that, in general, the pain-free caregiver group presented better
cognitive performance than the group with chronic pain, with significantly better
scores in some domains of the ACE-R instrument and in the total score. However, no
differences in P300 amplitude or P300 latency were found between the groups.
Cognitive performance
Our findings demonstrated that chronic pain might affect some cognitive functions
(attention/orientation and visual-spatial skills), as measured using the ACE-R. These
results appear to be in accordance with previous data in the literature showing that
patients with chronic pain performed worse than did pain-free participants[24],[25]. Furthermore, a negative relationship has been found between pain and cognitive
functioning in middle-age adults[26] and participants aged over 70 years[27].
Studies have shown that one of the main factors giving rise to worse cognitive performance
among participants with chronic pain is the interference of pain in attention resources[3],[28],[29]. Continuous pain may trigger a negative effect on some brain regions, through altering
synaptic connectivity and causing inhibition of cognitive control[1],[3]. Therefore, pain competes with the stimuli needed for attention, which results in
impairment of the performance of cognitive tasks[2],[28].
Regarding memory, there were no statistical differences between the groups with and
without chronic pain. These results diverge from the data in the literature. Some
previous studies have indicated that participants with chronic pain present worse
results in memory tests, especially with regard to working and episodic memory, compared
with pain-free controls[25],[26],[27]. From a meta-analysis on 23 studies, it was concluded that individuals with chronic
pain presented worse performance in working memory than did a control group[30].
In the present study, two-way ANOVA revealed a significant interaction effect between
the caregiving and pain factors, on cognitive processing assessed using the BCSB.
Thus, these data give rise to the understanding that the act of caregiving contributed
towards preserving cognitive function in this sample. Some authors have concluded
that the need to perform complex tasks relating to daily caregiving can contribute
to maintenance of cognitive function in the caregiver[31],[32]. However, this hypothesis could not be verified in the present study due to interference
from the pain factor.
Another important point that we observed was that among the participants with chronic
pain, there was no statistical difference in cognitive performance between caregivers
and non-caregivers. This may have been due to possible interaction between the neural
systems involved in cognition and the pain modulation system. This interaction between
structures impairs the speed at which information is processed in the brain[2]. Continuous pain can also cause cognitive interference in caregivers, even if they
are performing complex activities to deliver care. Thus, chronic pain can be a detrimental
factor with regard to attention and memory components and consequently can cause cognitive
impairment.
There were no studies in the literature that could confirm the abovementioned hypotheses.
Thus, future studies are necessary in order to compare results. This study presents
important and innovative results, given that the data in the literature on the influences
of caring on the physical and psychological health of elderly caregivers living in
the community is inconclusive[6],[31]. In addition, studies on cognitive performance in the elderly community with chronic
pain are still scarce.
A study conducted in the United States among 916 elderly women showed that caregivers
performed better in tests on working memory and processing speed than did non-caregiver
participants[32]. However, a longitudinal study conducted on a group of Alzheimer's disease caregivers
and a group of non-caregivers demonstrated that caregivers performed worse in processing
speed tests than non-caregivers and also had a higher rate of cognitive decline[33]. Moreover, it should be emphasized that the instruments used to evaluate cognition
present great diversity, which may be a factor that makes comparisons difficult.
Cognitive processing
In the present study we also used event-related potentials elicited through auditory
stimuli during an oddball task to analyze differences between groups regarding neurophysiological
correlates of cognitive processing. This type of task requires selection of sound
stimuli and an objective electrophysiological indicator of cognitive function[34],[35]. In particular, P300 amplitudes and latencies were analyzed since it has been demonstrated
that the P300 component may reflect processes involved in stimulus processing and
categorization during decision making. Moreover, longer P300 latencies and reduced
P300 amplitudes have been associated with cognitive dysfunction[23],[34].
Recently, some studies have used measurements based on EEGs as an instrument for brain
evaluation in individuals with chronic pain. A recent systematic review showed that
EEG analyses are objective and relatively simple tools for identifying specific characteristics
of brain conditions in individuals with chronic pain. In the majority of studies,
spectral power aspects have been analyzed in frequency bands (alpha and theta) and
event-related potentials. However, there is great heterogeneity across studies regarding
the technical protocols adopted[36].
In our study, we did not find any statistical differences between groups, either in
P300 amplitude or in P300 latency. A recent study showed that patients with chronic
low-back pain had lower P300 amplitudes, decreased attention, impaired decision-making
and reduced working memory capacity, compared with a control group[37]. Furthermore, patients with migraine showed lower P300 amplitudes than healthy controls,
thus suggesting the existence of dysfunction of cognitive processing associated with
migraine[38].
A previous study comparing the cognitive performance of individuals with chronic pain
or episodic pain, in relation to a control group, presented divergent data in which
it was not possible to observe any statistical differences in the amplitude of P300
between these groups[39].
Another study used P300 amplitude to investigate the effects of chronic pain on attentional
processing by using a probe task. Fourteen chronic pain patients and thirty age and
education-matched healthy controls were investigated. An attentional capacity probe
task was used, in which the difficulty level was manipulated. This resulted in an
easy and a difficult condition, while task-irrelevant visual probes were also presented.
According to the authors, the results may imply that, instead of attentional capacity,
allocation of attentional resources is the deficient aspect in pain patients[40]. The results might be associated with a model of hypervigilance among patients with
chronic pain, since hypervigilance can make patients more sensitive to distraction,
especially in relation to new stimuli[40],[41].
Our study evaluated elderly caregivers living in the community. This topic is relatively
new, since there are an increasing number of elderly people caring for another elderly
person in the same house. Evaluation of these subjects is important for enabling development
of healthcare strategies, mainly because of the gaps in knowledge regarding this matter
among elderly caregivers. Furthermore, chronic pain interferes in the performance
of activities of daily living and negatively influences the care that is provided
to the other elderly individual. Moreover, it predisposes the caregiver to cognitive
alterations, greater overload, worse quality of life and depression: factors that
compromise the behavioral and social skills of the elderly individual.
One limitation of the present study was caregiver profile selection bias. Participants
who provided different degrees of care were selected, thus making it difficult to
standardize the burden of the care given. Furthermore, the sample size was small and
variables such as the participants’ use of medications, depression symptoms and sleep
disorders were not controlled for.
CONCLUSION
One important aspect of the present study was that it evaluated elderly people’s cognition,
among participants with and without chronic pain, and tit ascertained whether the
act of caring had an effect on the performance and cognitive processing of this population.
In general, it was observed that pain-free individuals presented better performance.
The groups without chronic pain demonstrated significantly higher values in the ACE-R
cognitive instrument, compared with the groups with chronic pain.
