Harmful words: A qualitative survey of pain clinicians’ perspectives on unhelpful messages in chronic pain

IF 4 2区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Abbie Jordan , Phoebe Brook-Rowland , Melanie Noel , Jeremy Gauntlett-Gilbert
{"title":"Harmful words: A qualitative survey of pain clinicians’ perspectives on unhelpful messages in chronic pain","authors":"Abbie Jordan ,&nbsp;Phoebe Brook-Rowland ,&nbsp;Melanie Noel ,&nbsp;Jeremy Gauntlett-Gilbert","doi":"10.1016/j.jpain.2025.105524","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Individuals living with chronic pain report experiences of stigma and invalidation, including from health professionals. Anecdotally, specialist pain clinicians must work hard to engage and treat patients who have past experiences of professionals discounting their pain, or of confusing or unsettling messaging about the cause of their symptoms. However, no study has yet explored pain clinicians’ perspectives on unhelpful clinical messaging in this area. We conducted an online qualitative survey of 165 international pain clinicians, asking about the unhelpful messages heard, and repeated, by their patients. Participants reported unhelpful messaging as prevalent and clinically impactful. Qualitative survey data was analysed using inductive reflexive thematic analysis. Five themes were generated: (1) all in your head, (2) you’re physically vulnerable, (3) an elusive fix, (4) the end of the line, (5) inadequate pain explanations. The results underscore the importance of taking a validating stance towards patients’ pain report and avoiding messages that discourage movement and exercise. Pain clinicians were reluctant to endorse multiple investigations to find an imagined ‘cause’ for pain but also disliked clinical messages that implied hopelessness about the chronic pain situation. These results can guide clinical conversations in many settings where people with chronic pain receive care.</div></div><div><h3>Perspective</h3><div>Messages provided by clinicians to individuals living with chronic pain can be deleterious and unhelpful. Such clinical messages may invalidate pain, discourage movement, increase diagnostic uncertainty and/or provide a fatalistic long term outlook. Improvements in pain education for clinicians are required.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51095,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pain","volume":"35 ","pages":"Article 105524"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-07","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/S1526590025007515","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

Individuals living with chronic pain report experiences of stigma and invalidation, including from health professionals. Anecdotally, specialist pain clinicians must work hard to engage and treat patients who have past experiences of professionals discounting their pain, or of confusing or unsettling messaging about the cause of their symptoms. However, no study has yet explored pain clinicians’ perspectives on unhelpful clinical messaging in this area. We conducted an online qualitative survey of 165 international pain clinicians, asking about the unhelpful messages heard, and repeated, by their patients. Participants reported unhelpful messaging as prevalent and clinically impactful. Qualitative survey data was analysed using inductive reflexive thematic analysis. Five themes were generated: (1) all in your head, (2) you’re physically vulnerable, (3) an elusive fix, (4) the end of the line, (5) inadequate pain explanations. The results underscore the importance of taking a validating stance towards patients’ pain report and avoiding messages that discourage movement and exercise. Pain clinicians were reluctant to endorse multiple investigations to find an imagined ‘cause’ for pain but also disliked clinical messages that implied hopelessness about the chronic pain situation. These results can guide clinical conversations in many settings where people with chronic pain receive care.

Perspective

Messages provided by clinicians to individuals living with chronic pain can be deleterious and unhelpful. Such clinical messages may invalidate pain, discourage movement, increase diagnostic uncertainty and/or provide a fatalistic long term outlook. Improvements in pain education for clinicians are required.
有害话语:疼痛临床医生对慢性疼痛中无益信息的定性调查。
患有慢性疼痛的个人报告了耻辱和无效的经历,包括来自卫生专业人员的经历。有趣的是,专业的疼痛临床医生必须努力工作,以吸引和治疗那些过去经历过专业人士轻视他们的疼痛,或对他们的症状原因的混淆或令人不安的信息的患者。然而,目前还没有研究探索疼痛临床医生对这一领域中无益的临床信息的看法。我们对165名国际疼痛临床医生进行了在线定性调查,询问他们的病人听到和重复的无益信息。参与者报告说,无用的信息是普遍存在的,在临床上是有影响的。定性调查数据采用归纳反身主题分析法进行分析。产生了五个主题:(1)一切都在你的脑海中,(2)你的身体很脆弱,(3)难以捉摸的修复,(4)线的尽头,(5)不充分的疼痛解释。研究结果强调了对病人的疼痛报告采取有效立场的重要性,并避免那些不利于运动和锻炼的信息。疼痛临床医生不愿意支持多次调查,以找到一个想象的疼痛“原因”,但也不喜欢暗示对慢性疼痛情况绝望的临床信息。这些结果可以指导许多慢性疼痛患者接受治疗的临床对话。观点:临床医生提供给慢性疼痛患者的信息可能是有害的,无益的。这样的临床信息可能会使疼痛无效,阻碍运动,增加诊断的不确定性和/或提供宿命论的长期前景。临床医生需要改进疼痛教育。
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 求助全文
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.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信