3 results
Pain Influences Neuropsychological Performance Following Electrical Injury: A Cross-Sectional Study
- Katherine E. Dorociak, Jason R. Soble, Patricia A. Rupert, Joseph W. Fink, Raphael C. Lee, Magdalena Anitescu, David Weiss, Gerald Cooke, Zachary J. Resch, Neil H. Pliskin
-
- Journal:
- Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society / Volume 29 / Issue 1 / January 2023
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 18 January 2022, pp. 35-45
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Objective:
Electrical injury (EI) is a significant, multifaceted trauma often with multi-domain cognitive sequelae, even when the expected current path does not pass through the brain. Chronic pain (CP) research suggests pain may affect cognition directly and indirectly by influencing emotional distress which then impacts cognitive functioning. As chronic pain may be critical to understanding EI-related cognitive difficulties, the aims of the current study were: examine the direct and indirect effects of pain on cognition following EI and compare the relationship between pain and cognition in EI and CP populations.
Method:This cross-sectional study used data from a clinical sample of 50 patients with EI (84.0% male; M age = 43.7 years) administered standardized measures of pain (Pain Patient Profile), depression, and neurocognitive functioning. A CP comparison sample of 93 patients was also included.
Results:Higher pain levels were associated with poorer attention/processing speed and executive functioning performance among patients with EI. Depression was significantly correlated with pain and mediated the relationship between pain and attention/processing speed in patients with EI. When comparing the patients with EI and CP, the relationship between pain and cognition was similar for both clinical groups.
Conclusions:Findings indicate that pain impacts mood and cognition in patients with EI, and the influence of pain and its effect on cognition should be considered in the assessment and treatment of patients who have experienced an electrical injury.
Contributors
-
- By Waiel Almoustadi, Brian J. Anderson, David B. Auyong, Michael Avidan, Michael J. Avram, Roland J. Bainton, Jeffrey R. Balser, Juliana Barr, W. Scott Beattie, Manfred Blobner, T. Andrew Bowdle, Walter A. Boyle, Eugene B. Campbell, Laura F. Cavallone, Mario Cibelli, C. Michael Crowder, Ola Dale, M. Frances Davies, Mark Dershwitz, George Despotis, Clifford S. Deutschman, Brian S. Donahue, Marcel E. Durieux, Thomas J. Ebert, Talmage D. Egan, Helge Eilers, E. Wesley Ely, Charles W. Emala, Alex S. Evers, Heidrun Fink, Pierre Foëx, Stuart A. Forman, Helen F. Galley, Josephine M. Garcia-Ferrer, Robert W. Gereau, Tony Gin, David Glick, B. Joseph Guglielmo, Dhanesh K. Gupta, Howard B. Gutstein, Robert G. Hahn, Greg B. Hammer, Brian P. Head, Helen Higham, Laureen Hill, Kirk Hogan, Charles W. Hogue, Christopher G. Hughes, Eric Jacobsohn, Roger A. Johns, Dean R. Jones, Max Kelz, Evan D. Kharasch, Ellen W. King, W. Andrew Kofke, Tom C. Krejcie, Richard M. Langford, H. T. Lee, Isobel Lever, Jerrold H. Levy, J. Lance Lichtor, Larry Lindenbaum, Hung Pin Liu, Geoff Lockwood, Alex Macario, Conan MacDougall, M. B. MacIver, Aman Mahajan, Nándor Marczin, J. A. Jeevendra Martyn, George A. Mashour, Mervyn Maze, Thomas McDowell, Stuart McGrane, Berend Mets, Patrick Meybohm, Charles F. Minto, Jonathan Moss, Mohamed Naguib, Istvan Nagy, Nick Oliver, Paul S. Pagel, Pratik P. Pandharipande, Piyush Patel, Andrew J. Patterson, Robert A. Pearce, Ronald G. Pearl, Misha Perouansky, Kristof Racz, Chinniampalayam Rajamohan, Nilesh Randive, Imre Redai, Stephen Robinson, Richard W. Rosenquist, Carl E. Rosow, Uwe Rudolph, Francis V. Salinas, Robert D. Sanders, Sunita Sastry, Michael Schäfer, Jens Scholz, Thomas W. Schnider, Mark A. Schumacher, John W. Sear, Frédérique S. Servin, Jeffrey H. Silverstein, Tom De Smet, Martin Smith, Joe Henry Steinbach, Markus Steinfath, David F. Stowe, Gary R. Strichartz, Michel M. R. F. Struys, Isao Tsuneyoshi, Robert A. Veselis, Arthur Wallace, Robert P. Walt, David C. Warltier, Nigel R. Webster, Jeanine Wiener-Kronish, Troy Wildes, Paul Wischmeyer, Ling-Gang Wu, Stephen Yang
- Edited by Alex S. Evers, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Mervyn Maze, University of California, San Francisco, Evan D. Kharasch, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis
-
- Book:
- Anesthetic Pharmacology
- Published online:
- 11 April 2011
- Print publication:
- 10 March 2011, pp viii-xiv
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Was There a “Reformation Doctrine of Justification”?*
- David C. Fink
-
- Journal:
- Harvard Theological Review / Volume 103 / Issue 2 / April 2010
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 01 April 2010, pp. 205-235
- Print publication:
- April 2010
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
In this essay I take up cudgels against a central construct in the confessional historiography of the Protestant Reformation: The notion that there existed a clear, well-defined doctrine of justification shared by all the major reformers from the earliest stages of the conflagration and that this “Reformation doctrine of justification” served as the “material principle” in the formation of the emerging Protestant self-identity.1 In contrast with this traditional view, I argue that the first-generation reformers, galvanized by Luther's protest against the indulgence trade, adopted a common “rhetoric of dissent” aimed at critiquing the regnant Catholic orthopraxy of salvation in the interest of a common set of primarily existential-religious concerns. During the course of the next several decades following the initia Lutheri, however, an “orthodox” doctrine of justification quickly emerged'several of them, in fact. The Roman Catholic church and the emerging Protestant confessions, Lutheran and Reformed, quickly found it necessary to formulate their teachings in increasingly precise terms, so as both to integrate their central soteriological affirmations within a wider body of contested doctrines and practices and to demarcate clearly the boundaries of confessional identity in opposition to competing confessions. As with earlier periods of intense theological controversy within the Christian tradition, this conflict represented not a sudden breakthrough, but rather “a search for orthodoxy, a search conducted by the method of trial and error.”2 Unlike earlier debates, however, what emerged in the aftermath of the Reformation was not a single, dominant orthodoxy which carried the field, but rather multiple, competing orthodoxies, each one with its own Gospel.