Pain Intensity and Hypertension Types:
In an ANOVA, what best described normal hypertension patients' pain at its worst in the last week before the data collection did not significantly differ from that of their pre-hypertension, stage-1 hypertension, and that of their stage-2 hypertension counterparts (\(F=1.240, p=0.300\)). Similarly, what best described normal hypertension patients’ pain at its least in the last week before the data collection did not significantly differ from that of their pre-hypertension, stage-1 hypertension, and that of their stage-2 hypertension counterparts (\(F=2.383, p=0.770\)). On what best described their pain on average, it turned out that some of the normal hypertension patients did not significantly differ from that of their pre-hypertension, stage-1 hypertension, and that of their stage-2 hypertension counterparts (\(F=0.718, p=0.540\)) when it came to differences in pain. Finally, in an ANOVA to determine whether there was a significant difference between how much pain hypertension patients had, at the time of the data collection, and that of their pre-hypertension, stage-1 hypertension, or stage-2 hypertension counterparts, it turned out that there was none (\(F=1.491, p=0.220\)).
Analysis of the extent to which pain had interfered with some selected daily activities of respondents is presented in Table 1.1. A one-way analysis of variance was conducted to evaluate the null hypothesis that there is no difference in the level of interference of pain in participants’ general activity based on their BP status (M = 4.44, SD = 3.144, N = 117). The independent variable, BP, referring to the blood pressure status, included four groups: Normal Blood Pressure (M = 5.67, SD = 2.744, N = 18), Pre-Hypertension (M = 4.25, SD = 3.186, N = 48), Stage-1 Hypertension (M = 4.28, SD = 2.999, N = 29) and Stage-2 Hypertension (M = 4.05, SD = 3.498, N = 22).
Table 1.1
ANOVA for Pain Intensity against Blood Pressure Status
Blood Pressure Status
|
What best describes your pain at its worst in the last week
|
What best describes your pain at its least in the last week
|
What best describes your pain on the average
|
How much pain do you have right now?
|
Normal Hypertension
|
N
|
17
|
17
|
18
|
17
|
Median
|
8.00
|
2.00
|
5.00
|
5.00
|
Mean
|
7.65
|
3.18
|
5.06
|
5.24
|
Std. Deviation
|
2.262
|
2.744
|
1.830
|
2.538
|
Pre-hypertension
|
N
|
45
|
48
|
47
|
48
|
Median
|
7.00
|
2.00
|
5.00
|
3.00
|
Mean
|
6.16
|
2.44
|
4.11
|
3.56
|
Std. Deviation
|
3.119
|
2.422
|
2.434
|
2.938
|
Stage-1 hypertension
|
N
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
31
|
Median
|
7.00
|
1.50
|
4.00
|
3.00
|
Mean
|
6.59
|
2.43
|
4.35
|
3.65
|
Std. Deviation
|
2.472
|
2.909
|
2.229
|
2.847
|
Stage-2 Hypertension
|
N
|
22
|
21
|
21
|
22
|
Median
|
6.50
|
2.00
|
4.00
|
4.00
|
Mean
|
6.41
|
2.76
|
4.29
|
4.23
|
Std. Deviation
|
2.557
|
2.897
|
2.667
|
3.545
|
ANOVA
|
F
|
1.240
|
2.383
|
0.718
|
1.491
|
df
|
3
|
3
|
3
|
3
|
P
|
0.30
|
0.77
|
0.54
|
0.22
|
Source: Field Data Collection (Diabetes Centre - KATH, Ghana) |
Pain Interference and Hypertension Types:
Interference of Pain with Participants’ general Activity Based on their BP Status
The assumption of homogeneity of variances was tested and found tenable using Levene’s Test, [F (3, 113) = 1.004, p = 0.394] as represented in Table 1.2. The accompanying ANOVA was not significant [F (3, 113 = 1.117, p = 0.345] at a 95% confidence level. Hence there is significant evidence not to reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there was no significant difference in the level of interference of pain in participants’ general activity based on their BP status.
Table 1.2
ANOVA for Pain Interference by Stages of Hypertension
|
N
|
Mean
|
SD
|
95% Confidence
|
F(Num., Denom)
|
P
|
Lower
Bound
|
Upper
Bound
|
How pain has interfered with participants’ general activity
|
Normal Blood Pressure
|
18
|
5.67
|
2.744
|
4.30
|
7.03
|
1.117
(3,113)
|
0.345
|
Pre-hypertension
|
48
|
4.25
|
3.186
|
3.32
|
5.18
|
Stage-1 hypertension
|
29
|
4.28
|
2.999
|
3.14
|
5.42
|
Stage-2 hypertension
|
22
|
4.05
|
3.498
|
2.49
|
5.60
|
Total
|
117
|
4.44
|
3.144
|
3.86
|
5.01
|
How pain has interfered with participants’ mood
|
Normal Blood Pressure
|
18
|
5.33
|
2.808
|
3.94
|
6.73
|
1.482
(3,113)
|
0.223
|
Pre-hypertension
|
48
|
3.63
|
2.893
|
2.79
|
4.46
|
Stage-1 hypertension
|
29
|
4.17
|
2.953
|
3.05
|
5.30
|
Stage-2 hypertension
|
22
|
4.36
|
3.317
|
2.89
|
5.83
|
Total
|
117
|
4.16
|
2.997
|
3.61
|
4.71
|
How pain has interfered with participants’ walking ability
|
Normal Blood Pressure
|
18
|
5.50
|
2.834
|
4.09
|
6.91
|
1.126
(3,112)
|
0.342
|
Pre-hypertension
|
48
|
4.02
|
3.084
|
3.13
|
4.92
|
Stage-1 hypertension
|
29
|
4.72
|
3.172
|
3.52
|
5.93
|
Stage-2 hypertension
|
21
|
4.95
|
3.552
|
3.33
|
6.57
|
Total
|
116
|
4.59
|
3.165
|
4.01
|
5.18
|
How pain has interfered with participants’ normal work
|
Normal Blood Pressure
|
18
|
4.61
|
2.638
|
3.30
|
5.92
|
1.034
(3,112)
|
0.38
|
Pre-hypertension
|
48
|
3.25
|
2.928
|
2.40
|
4.10
|
Stage-1 hypertension
|
29
|
3.97
|
3.168
|
2.76
|
5.17
|
Stage-2 hypertension
|
21
|
4.10
|
3.491
|
2.51
|
5.68
|
Total
|
116
|
3.79
|
3.057
|
3.23
|
4.36
|
How pain has interfered with participants’ relations with other people
|
Normal Blood Pressure
|
17.00
|
2.35
|
2.21
|
1.22
|
3.49
|
0.316
(3,112)
|
0.814
|
Pre-hypertension
|
48.00
|
2.44
|
3.09
|
1.54
|
3.34
|
Stage-1 hypertension
|
30.00
|
2.97
|
3.54
|
1.65
|
4.29
|
Stage-2 hypertension
|
21.00
|
3.05
|
3.77
|
1.33
|
4.77
|
Total
|
116.00
|
3.05
|
3.21
|
2.08
|
3.26
|
How pain has interfered with participants’ sleep
|
Normal Blood Pressure
|
17.00
|
3.76
|
3.25
|
2.09
|
5.44
|
0.940
(3,113)
|
0.424
|
Pre-hypertension
|
48.00
|
3.33
|
3.06
|
2.45
|
4.22
|
Stage-1 hypertension
|
30.00
|
4.20
|
3.13
|
3.03
|
5.37
|
Stage-2 hypertension
|
22.00
|
4.59
|
3.50
|
3.04
|
6.14
|
Total
|
117.00
|
3.85
|
3.19
|
3.27
|
4.44
|
How pain has interfered with participants’ enjoyment of life
|
Normal Blood Pressure
|
17.00
|
4.47
|
2.55
|
3.16
|
5.78
|
0.398
(3,112)
|
0.754
|
Pre-hypertension
|
48.00
|
3.62
|
2.75
|
2.81
|
4.43
|
Stage-1 hypertension
|
30.00
|
3.90
|
2.93
|
2.81
|
4.99
|
Stage-2 hypertension
|
21.00
|
4.05
|
3.18
|
2.63
|
5.46
|
Total
|
116.00
|
3.90
|
2.84
|
3.38
|
4.42
|
Source: Field Data Collection (Diabetes Centre - KATH, Ghana) |
Interference of Pain with Participants’ Mood Based on their BP Status
Further, this study performed a one-way analysis of variance to evaluate the null hypothesis that there was no difference in the level of interference of pain in participants’ mood based on their BP status (M = 4.16, SD = 2.997, N = 117) as represented in Table 1.2. Here also independent variable, BP, referring to the blood pressure status, had four groups: Normal Blood Pressure (M = 5.33, SD = 2.808, N = 18), Pre-Hypertension (M = 3.63, SD = 2.893, N = 48), Stage-1 Hypertension (M = 4.17, SD = 2.953, N = 29) and Stage-2 Hypertension (M = 4.36, SD = 3.317, N = 22).
The assumption of homogeneity of variances was again tested for this group and found tenable using Levene’s Test, [F (3, 113) = 0.383, p = 0.766]. The accompanying ANOVA was not significant [F (3, 113) = 1.482, p = 0.223] at a 95% confidence level. Hence there was significant evidence not to reject the null hypothesis. We, therefore, concluded that there was no significant difference in the level of interference of pain in participants' moods based on their BP status.
Interference of Pain with Participants’ Walking Ability Based on their BP Status
Again, an analysis of the extent to which pain had interfered with respondents’ walking ability is presented in Table 1.2. A one-way ANOVA was conducted to evaluate the null hypothesis that there was no difference in the level of interference of pain in participants’ walking ability based on their BP status (M = 4.59, SD = 3.165, N = 116). Here also the independent variable, BP, referring to the blood pressure status, included four groups: Normal Blood Pressure (M = 5.50, SD = 2.834, N = 18), Pre-Hypertension (M = 4.02, SD = 3.084, N = 48), Stage-1 Hypertension (M = 4.72, SD = 3.172, N = 29) and Stage-2 Hypertension (M = 4.95, SD = 3.556, N = 21).
The assumption of homogeneity of variances was again tested for this group and found tenable using Levene’s Test, [F (3, 112) = 1.038, p = 0.379]. The accompanying ANOVA was not significant [F (3, 112) = 1.034, p = 0.380] at a 95% confidence level. This, therefore, implied that there was significant evidence not to reject the null hypothesis and concluded that there was no significant difference in the level of interference of pain in participants’ walking ability based on their BP status.
Interference of Pain with Participants’ Normal Work Based on their BP Status
Furthermore, an analysis of the extent to which pain had interfered with respondents’ normal work is presented in Table 1.2. A one-way ANOVA was conducted to evaluate the null hypothesis that there was no difference in the level of interference of pain in participants’ normal work based on their BP status (M = 3.79, SD = 3.057, N = 116). Once again, the independent variable, BP, referring to the blood pressure status, included four groups: Normal Blood Pressure (M = 4.61, SD = 2.638, N = 18), Pre-Hypertension (M = 3.25, SD = 2.928, N = 48), Stage-1 Hypertension (M = 3.97, SD = 3.168, N = 29) and Stage-2 Hypertension (M = 4.10, SD = 3.491, N = 21).
For the inferential part of the computation, the assumption of homogeneity of variances was tested and found tenable using Levene’s Test, [F (3, 112) = 1.695, p = 0.172]. The accompanying ANOVA was not significant [F (3, 112) = 1.034, p = 0.380] at a 95% confidence level. There was therefore significant evidence not to reject the null hypothesis and concluded that there was no statistically significant difference in the level of interference of pain in participants’ normal work based on their BP status.
Interference of Pain with Participants’ Relations with Other People Based on their BP Status
We present an analysis of the extent to which pain interfered with respondents’ relations with other people (Table 1.2). To ascertain that, a one-way analysis of variance was conducted to evaluate the null hypothesis that there was no difference in the level of interference of pain in participants’ relations with other people based on their BP status (M = 2.67, SD = 3.21, N = 116). Once again, the independent variable, BP, referring to the blood pressure status, included four groups: Normal Blood Pressure (M = 2.35, SD = 2.21, N = 17), Pre-Hypertension (M = 2.44, SD = 3.09, N = 48), Stage-1 Hypertension (M = 2.97, SD = 3.54, N = 30) and Stage-2 Hypertension (M = 3.05, SD = 3.77, N = 21).
For this computation as well, the assumption of homogeneity of variances was tested and, this time was not found tenable using Levene’s Test, [F (3, 112) = 5.556, p = 0.001]. Therefore, rather than going ahead with the use of ANOVA to ascertain the evidence of any effect of pain on respondents’ relations with other people based on their BP status, we used the robust test of equality of means, which is the Brown-Forsythe [F (3, 82) = 0.324, p = 0.808] at 95% confidence level. There was significant evidence not to reject the null hypothesis and concluded that there was no significant difference in the level of interference of pain in participants’ relations with other people, based on their BP status.
Interference of Pain with Participants’ Sleep Based on their BP Status
We further present an analysis of the extent to which pain had interfered with respondents’ sleep in Table 1.2. A one-way analysis of variance was conducted to evaluate the null hypothesis that there was no difference in the level of interference of pain in participants’ sleep based on their BP status (M = 3.85, SD = 3.190, N = 117). As usual, the independent variable, BP, referring to the blood pressure status, included four groups: Normal Blood Pressure (M = 3.76, SD = 3.25, N = 17), Pre-Hypertension (M = 3.33, SD = 3.06, N = 48), Stage-1 Hypertension (M = 4.20, SD = 3013, N = 30) and Stage-2 Hypertension (M = 4.59, SD = 3.50, N = 22).
Once again, the assumption of homogeneity of variances was tested and found tenable using Levene’s Test, [F (3, 113) = 0.639, p = 0.591]. The accompanying ANOVA was not significant [F (3, 113) = 0.940, p = 0.424] at a 95% confidence level. Hence there was again significant evidence not to reject the null hypothesis and concluded that there was no significant difference in the level of interference of pain in participants’ sleep based on their BP status.
Interference of Pain with Participants’ Enjoyment of Life Based on their BP Status
Finally, we performed an analysis of the extent to which pain had interfered with participants’ enjoyment of life (Table 1.2). To achieve this, a one-way analysis of variance was as usual conducted to evaluate the null hypothesis that there was no difference in the level of interference of pain in participants’ enjoyment of life based on their BP status (M = 3.90, SD = 2.84, N = 116). Here too, the independent variable, BP, referring to their blood pressure status, included four groups: Normal Blood Pressure (M = 4.47, SD = 2.55, N = 17), Pre-Hypertension (M = 3.62, SD = 2.75, N = 47), Stage-1 Hypertension (M = 3.90, SD = 2.93, N = 30) and Stage-2 Hypertension (M = 4.05, SD = 3.180, N = 22).
Once again, the assumption of homogeneity of variances was tested and found tenable using Levene’s Test, [F (3, 112) = 1.110, p = 0.348]. The accompanying ANOVA was also not significant [F (3, 112) = 0.398, p = 0.754] at a 95% confidence level. Hence there was significant evidence not to reject the null hypothesis and concluded that there was no significant difference in the level of interference of pain in participants’ enjoyment of life based on their BP status.
In summary, therefore, there was no statistically significant difference in the level of interference of pain in participants' general activity, their mood, their walking ability, their normal work, their relations with people, their sleep, and their enjoyment of life-based on their BP status in this study. In other words, irrespective of their BP status, the pain did not have any form of interference with their general activity in life, their mood, their walking ability, their normal work, their relations with people, their sleep, and their enjoyment of life.