Dataset Information

Patient Responses to the Term Pain Catastrophizing: Thematic Analysis of Cross-sectional International Data.

ABSTRACT: Pain catastrophizing is understood as a negative cognitive and emotional response to pain. Researchers, advocates and patients have reported stigmatizing effects of the term in clinical settings and the media. We conducted an international study to investigate patient perspectives on the term pain catastrophizing. Open-ended electronic patient and caregiver proxy surveys were promoted internationally by collaborator stakeholders and through social media. 3,521 surveys were received from 47 countries (77.3% from the U.S.). The sample was mainly female (82.1%), with a mean age of 41.62 (SD 12.03) years; 95% reported ongoing pain and pain duration > 10 years (68.4%). Forty-five percent (n = 1,295) had heard of the term pain catastrophizing; 12% (n = 349) reported being described as a 'pain catastrophizer' by a clinician with associated high levels of feeling blamed, judged, and dismissed. We present qualitative thematic data analytics for responses to open-ended questions, with 32% of responses highlighting the problematic nature of the term. We present the patients' perspective on the term pain catastrophizing, its material effect on clinical experiences, and associations with negative gender stereotypes. Use of patient-centered terminology may be important for favorably shaping the social context of patients' experience of pain and pain care. PERSPECTIVE: Our international patient survey found that 45% had heard of the term pain catastrophizing, about one-third spontaneously rated the term as problematic, and 12% reported the term was applied to them with most stating this was a negative experience. Clinician education on patient-centered terminology may improve care and reduce stigma.

SUBMITTER: Webster F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9898136 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Patient Responses to the Term Pain Catastrophizing: Thematic Analysis of Cross-sectional International Data.

Webster Fiona F Connoy Laura L Longo Riana R Ahuja Devdeep D Amtmann Dagmar D Anderson Andrea A Ashton-James Claire E CE Boyd Hannah H Chambers Christine T CT Cook Karon F KF Cowan Penney P Crombez Geert G Feinstein Amanda B AB Fuqua Anne A Gilam Gadi G Jordan Isabel I Mackey Sean C SC Martins Eduarda E Martire Lynn M LM O'Sullivan Peter P Richards Dawn P DP Turner Judith A JA Veasley Christin C Würtzen Hanne H Yang Su-Yin SY You Dokyoung S DS Ziadni Maisa M Darnall Beth D BD

The journal of pain 20221011 2

Pain catastrophizing is understood as a negative cognitive and emotional response to pain. Researchers, advocates and patients have reported stigmatizing effects of the term in clinical settings and the media. We conducted an international study to investigate patient perspectives on the term pain catastrophizing. Open-ended electronic patient and caregiver proxy surveys were promoted internationally by collaborator stakeholders and through social media. 3,521 surveys were received from 47 count ...[more]

PMID: 36241160

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTrunk co-contraction during lifting may reflect a guarded motor response to a threatening task. This work estimated the impact of pain catastrophizing on trunk co-contraction during lifting, in people with and without low back pain.MethodsAdults with high pain catastrophizing (back pain: n = 29, healthy: n = 7) and low pain catastrophizing (back pain: n = 20, healthy: n = 11), performed 10 repetitions of a lifting task. Electromyography data of rectus abdominis, erector spinae and external oblique muscles were collected, bilaterally. Co-contraction indices were determined for rectus abdominis/erector spinae and external oblique/erector spinae pairings, bilaterally. Pain catastrophizing was measured using the pain catastrophizing scale and task-specific fear using the Photograph series of daily activities scale. Three-way mixed ANOVAs tested the effects of group (back pain vs. healthy), pain catastrophizing (high vs. low), lifting phase (lifting vs. replacing) and their interactions.ResultsThere were no main effects of pain catastrophizing, lifting phase, nor any interactions (p > 0.05). Group effects revealed greater co-contraction for bilateral erector spinae/rectus abdominis pairings (but not erector spinae-external oblique pairings) in people with back pain, compared to healthy participants, independent of pain catastrophizing and lifting phase (p < 0.05). Spearman correlations associated greater task-specific fear and greater erector spinae-left external oblique co-contraction, only in people with back pain (p < 0.05).ConclusionsGreater co-contraction in the back pain group occurred independent of pain catastrophizing, as measured with a general questionnaire. A task-specific measure of threat may be more sensitive to detecting relationships between threat and co-contraction.Significance statementThis work contributes evidence that people with back pain commonly exhibit trunk co-contraction when lifting. The lack of a relationship between pain catastrophizing and trunk co-contraction, however, challenges evidence linking psychological factors and guarded motor behaviour in this group. Together, this suggests that other factors may be stronger determinants of co-contraction in people with LBP or that a general construct like pain catastrophizing may not accurately represent this relationship.

Project description:ObjectiveTo understand the levels of awareness, usage, and knowledge of biosimilars among patients, caregivers, and the general population in the US and the European Union; perceptions of biosimilars compared to originator biologics; perceived benefits and drawbacks of clinical trials; and whether advocacy groups impact patients' willingness to try a biosimilar.MethodsAn international survey was conducted which contained up to 56 closed-ended (requiring yes/no or ranking answers) and open-ended questions, depending on the population assigned. The survey was divided into distinct sections, including medication-class awareness, usage, and knowledge about biologic and biosimilar therapies; perceptions of clinical trials; and involvement in advocacy groups. Interviews were conducted in adults categorized as: 1) diagnosed: patients with inflammatory bowel disease including Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, breast cancer, lung cancer, colorectal cancer, or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma; 2) diagnosed advocacy: individuals with these diseases who participated in patient support groups; 3) caregiver: has a loved one with these conditions and is involved in medical decisions; 4) general population: aged 18-64 years, without these conditions. Statistical analyses among groups within a region (US or EU) used column proportions test with a 95% confidence interval.ResultsIn all, 3,198 individuals responded. Awareness about biologic therapies was significantly higher in diagnosed, diagnosed advocacy, and caregiver groups (45%-78%) versus general population (27%; P<0.05). Across all groups, awareness of biosimilars was low; only 6% of the general population reported at least a general impression of biosimilars. Awareness was significantly higher in the diagnosed advocacy group (20%-30%; P<0.05). Gaps in knowledge about biosimilars included safety, efficacy, and access to these agents. Respondents had generally positive perceptions of clinical trials, although barriers to participation were identified.ConclusionAn immediate need exists for patient education about biosimilars and clinical trials to ensure educated and informed decisions are made about biosimilar use.

Project description:IntroductionFibromyalgia (FM), characterized by wide-spread diffuse pain and sensory abnormalities, is associated with elevated indices of distress and pain-related catastrophizing compared to both pain-free samples and those with chronic pain conditions. Catastrophizing is a pervasive negative mental set, and is a strong predictor of negative pain-related outcomes such as clinical pain intensity, and physical disability. Situational catastrophizing, measured in the context of experimentally-induced pain, is strongly related to enhanced pain sensitivity, a core aspect of the pathophysiology of fibromyalgia. However, little is known regarding the temporal course of the association between catastrophizing and pain-related "outcomes". Most studies involve only static assessments of pain and catastrophizing at a single time point, which provides little insight into the direction of the observed associations. We sought to investigate the temporal relationships between catastrophizing and indices of both clinical pain (substudy 1) and experimentally-induced pain (substudy 2) in a larger randomized controlled longitudinal trial.MethodsFifty-seven patients with FM completed catastrophizing, depression, and pain questionnaires as well as laboratory cold pressor pain testing at baseline, post-intervention and three month follow-up during a lifestyle physical activity study. Cross-lagged panel analyses were used to address these temporal relationships.ResultsIn substudy 1, analyses revealed that pre-to-post changes in dispositional catastrophizing ratings prospectively accounted for unique variance in subsequent post-to-follow-up changes in clinical pain ratings (p = 0.005), while pre-to-post changes in pain ratings did not account for unique variance in post-to-follow-up changes in catastrophizing ratings. An identical pattern was observed experimentally in substudy 2, with pre-to-post changes in situational catastrophizing ratings prospectively accounting for unique variance in subsequent post-to-follow-up changes in experimental pain ratings (p = 0.014), while pre-to-post changes in pain ratings did not account for unique variance in post-to-follow-up changes in catastrophizing ratings. Specifically, initial alterations in catastrophizing were associated with subsequent alterations in clinical and experimentally induced pain. Controlling for levels of depression did not affect the results.ConclusionsThese findings provide empirical evidence that catastrophizing processes might precede and contribute to subsequent alterations in the pain experience for FM patients.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov: NCT00383084.

Project description:Catastrophizing is widely recognized as an important risk factor for adverse pain-related outcomes. However, questions remain surrounding the details of its assessment. In particular, recent laboratory studies suggest that evaluation of "situational" catastrophizing (ie, catastrophizing measured during or directly after the administration of noxious stimulation) may provide information distinct from that obtained by standard, or "dispositional" measures, which assess individuals' recall of catastrophizing in daily life. However, comparatively little research has systematically investigated the interrelationships and properties of these 2 different forms of pain-related catastrophizing. The current study evaluated both situational and dispositional catastrophizing measures within multiple samples: healthy individuals (N = 84), patients with painful temporomandibular joint disorders (TMD; N = 48), and patients with painful arthritis (N = 43). All participants first completed the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS), and then underwent psychophysical pain testing, which included heat, cold, and pressure pain. Participants then completed a situational catastrophizing measure with reference to the laboratory pain he/she had just undergone. Situational catastrophizing scores were not significantly correlated with dispositional PCS scores in the healthy participants and arthritis patients, though they were associated in TMD patients. Situational catastrophizing was more strongly associated with experimental pain responses than dispositional PCS scores for the healthy subjects and arthritis patients. In general, higher levels of situational catastrophizing were associated with lower pain thresholds and higher pain ratings across all 3 samples. The findings highlight the importance of multidimensional assessment of pain-related catastrophizing, and suggests a role for measuring catastrophizing related to specific, definable events.This study adds to a growing literature examining catastrophizing. Our findings highlight the potential importance of the multidimensional assessment of pain-related catastrophizing, and suggest a role for measuring catastrophizing related to specific, definable events.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Pain catastrophizing has been found to be an important predictor of disability and days lost from work in patients with low back pain. The most commonly used outcome measure to identify pain catastrophizing is the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS). To enable the use of the PCS in clinical settings and research in Norwegian speaking patients, the PCS had to be translated. The purpose of this study was therefore to translate and cross-culturally adapt the PCS into Norwegian and to test internal consistency, construct validity and reproducibility of the PCS. METHODS: The PCS was translated before it was tested for psychometric properties. Patients with subacute or chronic non-specific low back pain aged 18?years or more were recruited from primary and secondary care. Validity of the PCS was assessed by evaluating data quality (missing, floor and ceiling effects), principal components analysis, internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha), and construct validity (Spearman's rho). Reproducibility analyses included standard error of measurement, minimum detectable change, limits of agreement, and intraclass correlation coefficients. RESULTS: A total of 38 men and 52 women (n?=?90), with a mean (SD) age of 47.6 (11.7) years, were included for baseline testing. A subgroup of 61 patients was included for test-retest assessments. The Norwegian PCS was easy-to-comprehend. The principal components analysis supported a three-factor structure, internal consistency was satisfactory for the PCS total score (? 0.90) and the subscales rumination (? 0.83) and helplessness (? 0.86), but not for the subscale magnification (? 0.53). In total, 86% of the correlation analyses were in accordance with predefined hypothesis. The reliability analyses showed intraclass correlation coefficients of 0.74?-?0.87 for the PCS total score and subscales. The PCS total score (range 0-52 points) showed a standard error of measurement of 4.6 points and a 95% minimum detectable change estimate of 12.8 points. CONCLUSIONS: The Norwegian PCS total score showed acceptable psychometric properties in terms of comprehensibility, consistency, construct validity, and reproducibility when applied to patients with subacute or chronic LBP from different clinical settings. Our study support the use of the PCS total score for clinical or research purposes identifying or evaluating pain catastrophizing.

Dataset Information

Patient Responses to the Term Pain Catastrophizing: Thematic Analysis of Cross-sectional International Data.

Publications

Patient Responses to the Term Pain Catastrophizing: Thematic Analysis of Cross-sectional International Data.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets