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
临床医生和研究人员对疼痛灾难化一词的反应以及是否需要新的术语:国际横断面定性调查数据的内容分析。
疼痛灾难化被理解为对疼痛的消极认知和情绪反应。研究人员、临床医生、倡导者和患者都报告了在临床和媒体中使用该术语对患者的污名化影响。本报告描述了一项国际性、观察性、横断面研究调查的结果,该研究调查了临床医生和研究人员(专业人员)对疼痛灾难化这一术语的看法,以及是否需要或希望使用新术语。开放式电子调查由合作者、利益相关者以及通过社交媒体分发给研究人员和临床医生。专业人员报告了他们对该术语的熟悉程度,其含义和影响,以及他们对患者使用该术语的情况。来自46个国家(48.5%来自美国)的1397份专业人士调查。样本中近三分之二为女性(61.3%),平均年龄为56.67岁(SD=4.04),其中78.6%为临床医生(63.6%为疼痛专家;N =698)和20.3%的研究人员。大多数人熟悉这个词(82.2%;n = 1148)。在1098名临床医生中,33.6%的人在与患者沟通时使用过这个词。对专业人士对开放式问题的回答进行了内容分析。编码反应被合成为五个内容类别或主题:(1)疼痛灾难化是一种对疼痛的夸大反应;(2)疼痛灾难化是对疼痛的一种无益反应;(3)疼痛灾难化是一种污名化;(4)疼痛灾难化一词在临床上是有用的;(5)患者对术语的感知存在差异。结果强调了围绕疼痛灾难化这一术语的持续争议,以及将以患者为中心的方法纳入临床和公众沟通的额外研究和教育的必要性。观点:我们提出的内容分析国际临床医生和研究人员的观点对术语疼痛灾难。这项调查提供了迄今为止围绕疼痛灾难化的争议的最大描述,并可能指导未来减少慢性疼痛患者的耻辱感和改善患者与临床医生的沟通。
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
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
Letter to the Editor Re: Effects of centrally acting analgesics on resting-state electroencephalography biomarker candidates of chronic pain. Heterogeneity matters: Interpretating amputation outcomes in CRPS. Quality matters: Interpreting amputation outcomes in CRPS - Authors reply. Re: Letter to the Editor Re: Effects of centrally acting analgesics on resting-state electroencephalography biomarker candidates of chronic pain. Corrigendum to "Exposure to perinatal trauma modifies nociception and gene expression in the prefrontal cortex and hypothalamus of adolescent rats" [J Pain 38 (2025) 104762].
×
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:604180095
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