Cortical Thickness Mediates the Association Between Self-Reported Pain and Sleep Quality in Community-Dwelling Older Adults

Figures & data

Figure 1 Mechanistic working model.

Table 1 Demographic and Clinical Characteristics of the Sample (n=69)

	Chronic Pain (n = 46)	No Chronic Pain (n = 23)	P-value (Statistic)
Age, mean ± SD	72.41 ± 6.96	73.30 ± 7.07	0.622 (t-test)
Sex, no. (%)			0.116 (X^2)
Male	15 (32.60%)	12 (52.17%)
Female	31 (67.39%)	11 (47.82%)
Race, no. (%)			0.547 (X^2)
Caucasian	42 (91.30%)	23(100%)
Asian/Pacific Islander	2 (4.34%)	0 (0%)
Hispanic	1 (2.17%)	0 (0%)
Other	1 (2.17%)	0 (0%)
BMI, mean ± SD	29.85±9.32	26.50±4.66	0.062 (t-test)
Education Level, no (%)			0.135 (X^2)
High School Degree	13 (28.26%)	3 (13.04%)
Two-year college degree	8 (17.39%)	1 (4.34%)
Four-year college degree	9 (19.56%)	4 (17.39%)
Master’s degree	11(23.91%)	9 (39.13%)
Doctoral degree	5 (10.86%)	6 (26.08%)
CES-D, mean ± SD	6.45±5.04	5.08±4.53	0.260 (t-test)
MoCA, mean ± SD	25.93±3.05	27.39±1.72	0.014 (t-test)
Total PSQI, mean ± SD	6.59±3.62	4.39±2.73	0.007 (t-test)

Note: Bold values represent probability less than 0.05.

Table 2 Descriptive Statistics of the PSQI and Its Component Scores in Our Study Sample

PSQI Component	Mean ± SD	Min–Max
C1: Sleep Quality	0.75 ± 0.6	0–2.00
C2: Sleep Latency	1.00 ± 1.0	0–3.00
C3: Sleep Duration	0.36 ± 0.7	0–3.00
C4: Habitual Sleep Efficiency	1.06 ± 1.2	0–3.00
C5: Sleep Disturbances	1.39 ± 0.6	0–3.00
C6: Use of Sleep Medication	0.61 ± 1.1	0–3.00
C7: Daytime Dysfunction	0.65 ± 0.6	0–2.00
PSQI Total Score	5.85 ± 3.5	1–17.00

Table 3 Intercorrelation Matrix Among the PSQI Components (n=69)

Spearman’s Rho	C2	C3	C4	C5	C6	C7	PSQI Total
C1	r = 0.390* p = 0.001 p’ = 0.004	r = 0.413* p = 0.000 p’ = 0.000	r = 0.154 p = 0.207 p’ = 0.207	r = 0.424* p = 0.000 p’ = 0.000	r = 0.222 p = 0.067 p’ = 0.189	r = 0.225 p = 0.063 p’ = 0.189	r = 0.588* p = 0.000 p’ = 0.000
C2		r = 0.270* p = 0.025 p’ = 0.100	r = 0.117 p = 0.337 p’ = 0.337	r = 0.231 p = 0.056 p’ = 0.168	r = 0.212 p = 0.080 p’ = 0.168	r = 0.310* p = 0.010 p’ = 0.150	r = 0.580* p = 0.000 p’ = 0.000
C3			r = 0.296* p = 0.014 p’ = 0.042	r = 0.269* p = 0.026 p’ = 0.052	r = 0.375* p = 0.002 p’ = 0.008	r = 0.131 p = 0.284 p’ = 0.284	r = 0.590* p = 0.000 p’ = 0.000
C4				r = 0.105 p = 0.390 p’ = 0.780	r = 0.263* p = 0.029 p’ = 0.087	r = 0.081 p = 0.508 p’ = 0.780	r = 0.631* p = 0.000 p’ = 0.000
C5					r = −0.047 p = 0.701 p’ = 0.904	r = 0.092 p = 0.452 p’ = 0.904	r = 0.366* p = 0.002 p’ = 0.006
C6						r = 0.132 p = 0.279 p’ = 0.279	r = 0.563* p = 0.000 p’ = 0.000
C7							r = 0.426* p = 0.000 p’ = 0.000

Notes: *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed). p’ = corrected probability value applying the Holm-Bonferroni method. C1: sleep quality; C2: sleep latency; C3: sleep duration; C4: habitual sleep efficiency; C5: sleep disturbances; C6: use of sleep medication; C7: daytime dysfunction. Bolded values reflect a probability of less than 0.05.

Table 4 Associations Between Total PSQI Score and the PSQI Components with Self-Reported Pain and Somatosensory and Pain Threshold Measures (n=69)

	C1	C2	C3	C4	C5	C6	C7	Total PSQI
Self-Reported Measures
Average Pain Intensity for Worst Pain	r = 0.196 p = 0.110 p’ = 0.330	r = 0.258* p = 0.034 p’ = 0.136	r = 0.284* p = 0.019 p’ = 0.114	r = 0.088 p = 0.474 p’ = 0.948	r = 0.409* p = 0.001 p’= 0.008	r = 0.014 p = 0.910 p’ = 0.948	r = 0.280* p = 0.021 p’ = 0.114	r = 0.325* p = 0.007 p’ = 0.049
Worst Pain Duration	r = −0.095 p = 0.536 p’ = 1.000	r = −0.065 p = 0.672 p’ = 1.000	r = −0.061 p = 0.689 p’ = 1.000	r = −0.176 p = 0.249 p’ = 1.000	r = −0.007 p = 0.966 p’= 1.000	r = −0.152 p = 0.320 p’=1.000	r = −0.260 p = 0.084 p’ = 0.672	r = −0.208 p = 0.170 p’ = 1.000
Anatomical Pain Sites	r = 0.213 p = 0.081 p’ = 0.405	r = 0.158 p = 0.199 p’ = 0.796	r = 0.362* p = 0.002 p’ = 0.016	r = 0.066 p = 0.593 p’ = 1.000	r = 0.251* p = 0.039 p’= 0.252	r = 0.085 p = 0.490 p’ = 1.000	r = −0.003 p = 0.978 p’ = 1.000	r = 0.255* p = 0.036 p’ = 0.252
Pain Interference	r = 0.211 p = 0.085 p’ = 0.410	r = 0.360* p = 0.003 p’ = 0.024	r = 0.162 p = 0.187 p’ = 0.561	r = 0.002 p = 0.990 p’ = 0.990	r = 0.213 p = 0.082 p’= 0.410	r = 0.138 p = 0.262 p’ = 0.561	r = 0.253* p = 0.037 p’ = 0.222	r = 0.303* p = 0.012 p’ = 0.084
Laboratory Measures
Vibratory Detection	r = 0.103 p = 0.439 p’ = 1.000	r = 0.081 p = 0.542 p’ = 1.000	r = 0.151 p = 0.253 p’ = 1.000	r = −0.113 p = 0.393 p’ = 1.000	r = 0.026 p = 0.848 p’= 1.000	r = −0.215 p = 0.101 p’ = 0.808	r = 0.048 p = 0.717 p’=1.000	r = −0.025 p = 0.849 p’ = 1.000
Thermal Detection	r = 0.022 p = 0.873 p’ = 1.000	r = 0.013 p = 0.927 p’ = 1.000	r = 0.111 p = 0.414 p’ = 1.000	r = −0.071 p = 0.601 p’ = 1.000	r = −0.065 p = 0.632 p’= 1.000	r = −0.066 p = 0.626 p’ = 1.000	r = 0.168 p = 0.217 p’=1.736	r = 0.005 p = 0.971 p’ = 1.000
Thermal Pain	r = 0.110 p = 0.419 p’ = 1.000	r = −0.101 p = 0.458 p’ = 1.000	r = −0.005 p = 0.971 p’ = 1.000	r = −0.197 p = 0.145 p’ = 1.160	r = −0.099 p = 0.467 p’= 1.000	r = −0.105 p = 0.440 p’ = 1.000	r = −0.019 p = 0.887 p’=1.000	r = −0.132 p = 0.332 p’ = 1.000
Pressure Pain	r = 0.024 p = 0.860 p’ = 1.000	r = −0.071 p = 0.607 p’ = 1.000	r = −0.123 p = 0.372 p’ = 1.000	r = 0.086 p = 0.534 p’ = 1.000	r = 0.072 p = 0.599 p’ = 1.000	r = −0.146 p = 0.289 p’ = 2.312	r = −0.089 p = 0.519 p’=1.000	r = −0.066 p = 0.633 p’ = 1.000

Notes: *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed). p’= corrected probability value applying the Holm-Bonferroni method. Bold values represent probability less than 0.05.

Figure 2 Cortical thickness was negatively associated with total PSQI scores (FWE-corrected values after applying threshold-free cluster enhancement (TFCE, p < 0.05)).

Figure 3 Postcentral cortical thickness mediated the association between PSQI total and worst pain intensity.