. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2014 Jan 1.

Published in final edited form as: Pain. 2012 Oct 16;154(1):147–153. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2012.10.004

Table 2.

Multi-level regression analyses: Relations of pain intensity, Partnership Group, and Pain X Partnership Group Interactions Predicting Daily Physical Disability, Positive and Negative Affect, Pain Catastrophizing, and Pain Coping Difficulty

	Dependent Variable
	Disability	Negative affect	Positive affect	Pain catastrophizing	Pain coping difficulty
Predictors	b (SE)	b (SE)	b (SE)	b (SE)	b (SE)
Between-subject
Diagnosis: OA vs FM	18.78 (3.77)^***	0.12 (0.05)^**	−0.44 (0.10)^***	0.41 (0.10)^***	0.40 (0.10)^***
Partnership group: UnP vs HighSat	2.70 (4.51)	−0.03 (0.06)	0.02 (0.12)	0.03 (0.12)	0.05 (0.12)
Partnership group: LowSat vs HighSat	2.60 (4.88)	0.02 (0.06)	−0.15 (0.13)	0.13 (0.14)	0.02 (0.13)
Within-subject
ΔPain	0.34 (0.04)^***	0.003 (0.0005)^***	−0.01 (0.0007)^***	0.01 (0.0008)^***	0.02 (0.0009)^***
ΔPain x Partnership group: UnP vs HighSat	0.14 (0.06)^**	.00049 (0.0006)	−0.003 (0.0009)^**	0.003 (0.001)^**	0.005 (0.001)^***
ΔPain x Partnership group: LowSat vs HighSat	0.15 (0.06)^**	0.0005 (0.0007)	−0.0008 (0.001)	0.003 (0.001)^**	0.006 (0.001)^***

Note: OA = osteoarthritis; FM = fibromyalgia; UnP = unpartnered, HighSat = partnered/high satisfaction, LowSat = partnered/low satisfaction.

Between-subject dfs range from 245–250, within-subject dfs range from 5549–7063.

p < .05;

^**

p < .01;

^***

p < .001