Psychosocial factors do not explain discrepancy between daily diary and one-week retrospective reports of pain.

Abstract

Self-report is the gold standard for assessing pain intensity, although the method of acquiring pain reports may influence the ratings obtained. Retrospective reports of pain intensity are often found to be elevated relative to daily diary reports, possibly due to recall bias and the influence of psychosocial factors on memory. In this study, we sought to examine differences between retrospective reporting of average pain intensity in the past week vs averaged daily diary reporting of pain intensity in a sample of adolescents with juvenile fibromyalgia (JFM). We also sought to determine the predictive effects of pain catastrophizing, functional disability, and depressive symptoms on discrepancies between retrospective and daily diary report. As part of a randomized controlled trial, 317 adolescents with JFM (Mage = 15.7, SD = 1.6, 88.4% female) completed daily diary and one-week retrospective pain intensity measures, the Children's Depression Inventory-2, Functional Disability Inventory, and Pain Catastrophizing Scale at baseline, post-treatment, and 3-month follow-up. We examined the predictive effects of psychosocial factors on mean differences between averaged daily and one-week retrospective reports of pain intensity. Retrospective reports of pain intensity were significantly higher than diary reports across time. A longitudinal multiple linear regression model showed that the magnitude of discrepancies between daily diary and retrospective reports was not significantly predicted by functional disability, depressive symptoms, or pain catastrophizing. These findings raise the possibility that other factors such as cognitive biases (eg, threat interpretation, saliency, recency bias) may play a larger role than psychosocial factors in explaining pain reporting discrepancies.