The downside to choice: instrumental control increases conditioned nocebo hyperalgesia.

IF 5.9 1区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY PAIN® Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-02 DOI:10.1097/j.pain.0000000000003251
Biya Tang, Evan Livesey, Ben Colagiuri
{"title":"The downside to choice: instrumental control increases conditioned nocebo hyperalgesia.","authors":"Biya Tang, Evan Livesey, Ben Colagiuri","doi":"10.1097/j.pain.0000000000003251","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Abstract: </strong>Nocebo hyperalgesia is a pervasive problem in which the treatment context triggers negative expectations that exacerbate pain. Thus, developing ethical strategies to mitigate nocebo hyperalgesia is crucial. Emerging research suggests that choice has the capacity to reduce nocebo side effects, but choice effects on nocebo hyperalgesia have not been explored. This study investigated the impact of choice on conditioned nocebo hyperalgesia using a well-established electrocutaneous pain paradigm where increases in noxious stimulation were surreptitiously paired with the activation of a sham device. In study 1, healthy volunteers (N = 104) were randomised to choice over (nocebo) treatment administration, nocebo administration without choice, or a natural history control group. Nocebo hyperalgesia was greater for those with choice than no choice, suggesting that choice increased rather than diminished nocebo hyperalgesia. Study 2 tested whether providing positive information about the benefits of choice in coping with pain could counteract heightened nocebo hyperalgesia caused by choice. A different sample of healthy adults (N = 137) were randomised to receive nocebo treatment with choice and positive choice information, choice only, or no choice. The positive choice information failed to attenuate the effect of choice on nocebo hyperalgesia. The current results suggest that, rather than decreasing nocebo hyperalgesia, treatment choice may exacerbate pain outcomes when a painful procedure is repeatedly administered. As such, using choice as a strategy to mitigate nocebo outcomes should be treated with caution.</p>","PeriodicalId":19921,"journal":{"name":"PAIN®","volume":" ","pages":"2257-2273"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PAIN®","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/j.pain.0000000000003251","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract: Nocebo hyperalgesia is a pervasive problem in which the treatment context triggers negative expectations that exacerbate pain. Thus, developing ethical strategies to mitigate nocebo hyperalgesia is crucial. Emerging research suggests that choice has the capacity to reduce nocebo side effects, but choice effects on nocebo hyperalgesia have not been explored. This study investigated the impact of choice on conditioned nocebo hyperalgesia using a well-established electrocutaneous pain paradigm where increases in noxious stimulation were surreptitiously paired with the activation of a sham device. In study 1, healthy volunteers (N = 104) were randomised to choice over (nocebo) treatment administration, nocebo administration without choice, or a natural history control group. Nocebo hyperalgesia was greater for those with choice than no choice, suggesting that choice increased rather than diminished nocebo hyperalgesia. Study 2 tested whether providing positive information about the benefits of choice in coping with pain could counteract heightened nocebo hyperalgesia caused by choice. A different sample of healthy adults (N = 137) were randomised to receive nocebo treatment with choice and positive choice information, choice only, or no choice. The positive choice information failed to attenuate the effect of choice on nocebo hyperalgesia. The current results suggest that, rather than decreasing nocebo hyperalgesia, treatment choice may exacerbate pain outcomes when a painful procedure is repeatedly administered. As such, using choice as a strategy to mitigate nocebo outcomes should be treated with caution.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
选择的弊端:工具性控制会增加条件性的 "预兆超痛感"。
摘要:前奏性超痛症是一个普遍存在的问题,在这种情况下,治疗环境会引发负面预期,从而加剧疼痛。因此,制定符合伦理的策略来减轻 "前奏 "超痛感至关重要。新近的研究表明,选择有能力减少预兆性副作用,但选择对预兆性超痛症的影响尚未得到探讨。本研究采用一种成熟的电切肤痛范例,在增加有害刺激的同时偷偷激活一个假装置,从而研究选择对条件性假超痛感的影响。在研究1中,健康志愿者(104人)被随机分配到选择性治疗组、无选择性治疗组或自然史对照组。与无选择相比,有选择者的假想超痛感更强,这表明选择会增加而不是减少假想超痛感。研究 2 测试了提供关于选择对应对疼痛的益处的正面信息是否能抵消因选择而导致的高假想超痛感。研究人员随机抽取了不同样本的健康成年人(样本数=137),让他们接受带有选择和积极选择信息、仅有选择或没有选择的免惊治疗。积极的选择信息未能减弱选择对欺骗性超痛感的影响。目前的研究结果表明,当反复进行疼痛治疗时,治疗选择非但不会减轻假想超痛感,反而会加重疼痛结果。因此,应谨慎使用选择作为减轻幻觉结果的策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
PAIN®
PAIN® 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
12.50
自引率
8.10%
发文量
242
审稿时长
9 months
期刊介绍: PAIN® is the official publication of the International Association for the Study of Pain and publishes original research on the nature,mechanisms and treatment of pain.PAIN® provides a forum for the dissemination of research in the basic and clinical sciences of multidisciplinary interest.
期刊最新文献
Trpv1-lineage neuron-expressing Kcnq4 channel modulates itch sensation in mice. Enhancing healthcare professionals' biopsychosocial perspective to chronic pain: assessing the impact of implementing an interdisciplinary training program. Breaking barriers: addressing opioid stigma in chronic pain and opioid use disorder. Pharmacologically enabling the degradation of NaV1.8 channels to reduce neuropathic pain. Complementary, integrative, and standard rehabilitative therapies in a military population with chronic predominantly musculoskeletal pain: a pragmatic clinical trial with SMART design.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1