Clinician and researcher responses to the term pain catastrophizing and whether new terminology is needed: Content analysis of international, cross-sectional, qualitative survey data

IF 4 2区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Journal of Pain Pub Date : 2025-02-05 DOI:10.1016/j.jpain.2025.105330
Hannah Boyd , Dokyoung S. You , Angela Nguyen , Laura Connoy , Devdeep Ahuja , Christine Chambers , Penny Cowan , Rachel Cox , Geert Crombez , Amanda B. Feinstein , Anne Fuqua , Gadi Gilam , Sean C. Mackey , Lance M. McCracken , Lynn M. Martire , Kathleen Sluka , Peter O’Sullivan , Judith A. Turner , Christin Veasley , Maisa S. Ziadni , Beth D. Darnall
{"title":"Clinician and researcher responses to the term pain catastrophizing and whether new terminology is needed: Content analysis of international, cross-sectional, qualitative survey data","authors":"Hannah Boyd ,&nbsp;Dokyoung S. You ,&nbsp;Angela Nguyen ,&nbsp;Laura Connoy ,&nbsp;Devdeep Ahuja ,&nbsp;Christine Chambers ,&nbsp;Penny Cowan ,&nbsp;Rachel Cox ,&nbsp;Geert Crombez ,&nbsp;Amanda B. Feinstein ,&nbsp;Anne Fuqua ,&nbsp;Gadi Gilam ,&nbsp;Sean C. Mackey ,&nbsp;Lance M. McCracken ,&nbsp;Lynn M. Martire ,&nbsp;Kathleen Sluka ,&nbsp;Peter O’Sullivan ,&nbsp;Judith A. Turner ,&nbsp;Christin Veasley ,&nbsp;Maisa S. Ziadni ,&nbsp;Beth D. Darnall","doi":"10.1016/j.jpain.2025.105330","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Pain catastrophizing is understood as a negative cognitive and emotional response to pain. Researchers, clinicians, advocates, and patients have reported stigmatizing effects of the term on patients when used clinically and in the media. This report describes the results of an international, observational, cross-sectional study investigation of clinician and researcher (professionals) perspectives on the term pain catastrophizing and whether new terminology is needed or desired. Open-ended electronic surveys were distributed to researchers and clinicians by collaborators, stakeholders, and through social media. Professionals reported on their familiarity with the term, its meaning and impacts, and their use of the term with patients. 1397 surveys from professionals in 46 countries (48.5% from the U.S.) were received. The sample was almost two-thirds female (61.3%), with a mean age of 56.67 (SD=4.04) years, and comprised of 78.6% clinicians (63.6%, pain specialists; n=698) and 20.3% researchers. The majority were familiar with the term (82.2%; n=1148). Among the 1098 clinicians, 33.6% had used the term in communication with patients. A content analysis of professionals’ responses to open-ended questions is presented. Coded responses were synthesized into five content categories or themes: (1) pain catastrophizing is an exaggerated response to pain; (2) pain catastrophizing is an unhelpful response to pain; (3) the term pain catastrophizing is stigmatizing; (4) the term pain catastrophizing is clinically useful; (5) patients’ perception of the term varies. Results highlight the continual controversy surrounding the term pain catastrophizing and the need for additional research and education to incorporate patient-centered approaches into clinical and public communications.</div><div><strong>Perspective:</strong></div><div>We present a content analysis of international clinician and researcher perspectives on the term pain catastrophizing. This investigation provides the largest depiction to date of the controversy surrounding pain catastrophizing and may guide future efforts to decrease stigma in patients with chronic pain and improve patient-clinician communication.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51095,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pain","volume":"29 ","pages":"Article 105330"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pain","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1526590025005577","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Pain catastrophizing is understood as a negative cognitive and emotional response to pain. Researchers, clinicians, advocates, and patients have reported stigmatizing effects of the term on patients when used clinically and in the media. This report describes the results of an international, observational, cross-sectional study investigation of clinician and researcher (professionals) perspectives on the term pain catastrophizing and whether new terminology is needed or desired. Open-ended electronic surveys were distributed to researchers and clinicians by collaborators, stakeholders, and through social media. Professionals reported on their familiarity with the term, its meaning and impacts, and their use of the term with patients. 1397 surveys from professionals in 46 countries (48.5% from the U.S.) were received. The sample was almost two-thirds female (61.3%), with a mean age of 56.67 (SD=4.04) years, and comprised of 78.6% clinicians (63.6%, pain specialists; n=698) and 20.3% researchers. The majority were familiar with the term (82.2%; n=1148). Among the 1098 clinicians, 33.6% had used the term in communication with patients. A content analysis of professionals’ responses to open-ended questions is presented. Coded responses were synthesized into five content categories or themes: (1) pain catastrophizing is an exaggerated response to pain; (2) pain catastrophizing is an unhelpful response to pain; (3) the term pain catastrophizing is stigmatizing; (4) the term pain catastrophizing is clinically useful; (5) patients’ perception of the term varies. Results highlight the continual controversy surrounding the term pain catastrophizing and the need for additional research and education to incorporate patient-centered approaches into clinical and public communications.
Perspective:
We present a content analysis of international clinician and researcher perspectives on the term pain catastrophizing. This investigation provides the largest depiction to date of the controversy surrounding pain catastrophizing and may guide future efforts to decrease stigma in patients with chronic pain and improve patient-clinician communication.
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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
相关文献
Investigation of the ytterbium reduction process in the synthesis of Al – Yb master alloys for the modification of aluminum alloys
IF 1.5 Nonferrous MetalsPub Date : 2022-12-22 DOI: 10.17580/nfm.2022.02.11
V. Bazhin, S. Savchenkov, N. A. Gordevnin
Preparation of Al-Sr master alloys by the aluminothermic reduction of SrO using aluminum scrap at pilot plant scale
IF 0 Revue De Metallurgie-cahiers D Informations TechniquesPub Date : 2017-01-01 DOI: 10.1051/METAL/2017061
R. Juárez, A. Flores, R. Ochoa, L. Martinez, J. Torres, A. Reyes
来源期刊
Journal of Pain
Journal of Pain 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
7.50%
发文量
441
审稿时长
42 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Pain publishes original articles related to all aspects of pain, including clinical and basic research, patient care, education, and health policy. Articles selected for publication in the Journal are most commonly reports of original clinical research or reports of original basic research. In addition, invited critical reviews, including meta analyses of drugs for pain management, invited commentaries on reviews, and exceptional case studies are published in the Journal. The mission of the Journal is to improve the care of patients in pain by providing a forum for clinical researchers, basic scientists, clinicians, and other health professionals to publish original research.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Table of Contents Masthead Cannabidiol reduces neuropathic pain and cognitive impairments through activation of spinal PPARγ Individual differences in response to repeated painful stimulation: Habituation, sensitization, and nocebo effects
×
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