Article

The impact of threatening information about pain on coping and pain tolerance.

School of Psychology, James Cook University, Australia.
British Journal of Health Psychology (Impact Factor: 2.7). 10/2005; 10(Pt 3):441-51. DOI: 10.1348/135910705X27587
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT This study examined the impact of threatening information on coping and pain tolerance in a healthy adult sample. Prior to engaging in a Cold Pressor Test (CPT), 121 college students were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: a threat condition in which they read an orienting passage warning them about symptoms and consequences of frostbite (pain as a signal for nociception), a reassurance condition in which they read an orienting passage about the safety of the CPT (pain independent of nociception), or a control condition in which no orienting passage was read before the experimental task. Only 15.6% of participants in the threat group completed the CPT to its 4-minute duration, compared with 55.6% in the reassurance group and 45.2% of those in the control group. Even though groups did not differ on level of reported pain, threatened participants catastrophized more about the pain and reported less use of cognitive coping strategies (reinterpreting pain sensations, ignoring pain, diverting attention away from pain to other experiences, and using coping self-statements) than other respondents. A path analysis indicated that the relation between threat and pain tolerance was fully mediated by catastrophizing and cognitive coping. Together, findings suggest that pain appraised as threatening contributes to a specific pattern of coping responses associated with a reduced capacity to bear pain.

1 Bookmark
 · 
227 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Pain is a major ailment that motivates individuals to look for treatment. Despite its enormous clinical relevance, very little is known about the factors that influence our preference of an analgesic (or pain-relieving treatment). The current study investigated the influence of the information regarding the probability and the magnitude of the expected analgesic effect on preference of analgesic options. METHODS: Twenty-four healthy volunteers were instructed to imagine pain across different scenarios and choose between two hypothetical analgesics that differed in their probabilities to successfully relieve pain and the magnitude of their expected analgesic effects. The conservative analgesic was more reliable but less potent than the radical analgesic, whereas the radical analgesic was less reliable but more potent than the conservative analgesic. RESULTS: Consistent with the predictions of prospect theory, a larger proportion of the participants chose the radical analgesic when the overall probability of both analgesics decreased, and when the potency of the radical analgesic was expected to be stronger relative to the conservative analgesic. At the individual level, individuals' relative imagined pain relief (radical analgesic/conservative analgesic) predicted their preference for the radical analgesic. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings revealed that preference of analgesic options is mediated by the overall probability of analgesic effect and the relative potency of analgesics. The expected relief one imagines to obtain from analgesics would guide preference. The findings highlight the importance for clinicians to understand how patients subjectively frame the probability and magnitude factors related to decision making in medical context.
    European journal of pain (London, England) 09/2012; · 3.37 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aims of this study were: 1) to examine race and sex differences in primary pain appraisals and catastrophizing; 2) to test the unique ability of race, sex, primary pain appraisals, and catastrophizing to predict experimental pain outcomes; and 3) to conduct mediational analyses testing pain appraisals and catastrophizing as explanatory mechanisms for race and sex differences in pain. One hundred and fifty-five college students at The University of Alabama completed a cold pressor experimental pain task and a questionnaire battery. Statistical methods included multivariable regression models and nonparametric bootstrapping methods for tests of mediation. African-Americans reported higher catastrophizing and had lower pain tolerance than white Americans. Males demonstrated higher challenge appraisals, lower pain intensity, and longer pain tolerance. Challenge appraisals were positively related to pain tolerance, threat/harm appraisals were inversely related to pain tolerance, and pain catastrophizing was positively related to both pain intensity and pain unpleasantness. Pain catastrophizing partially mediated race differences in pain tolerance and mediated sex differences in intensity, whereas primary pain appraisals did not significantly mediate race or sex differences in pain variables. Primary appraisals and catastrophizing appear to be separable constructs related to different aspects of the pain experience. PERSPECTIVE: This study found that important race and sex differences exist in relation to pain appraisals and catastrophizing, and that these cognitive variables play unique roles in different aspects of the pain experience. Cognitive-behavioral therapies for pain may be enhanced by including a focus on both pain appraisals and pain catastrophizing.
    The journal of pain: official journal of the American Pain Society 01/2011; 12(5):563-72. · 3.78 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The field of pain medicine has shifted from multidisciplinary rehabilitation to procedure-focused interventional pain medicine (IPM). Considerable controversy exists regarding the efficacy of IPM and its more narrow focus on nociception as an exclusive target of pain treatment. This topical review aims to examine pain research and treatment outcome studies that support a biopsychosocial model of pain, and to critique the clinical practice of IPM given its departure from the premises of a biopsychosocial model. A modern definition of pain and findings from clinical and basic science studies indicate that pain-related psychological factors are integral to pain perception. The clinical viability of IPM is challenged based upon its biomedical view of peripheral nociception as a primary source of pain and the potential of this viewpoint to foster maladaptive pain attributions and discourage the use of pain coping strategies among chronic pain patients. IPM should adopt a biopsychosocial perspective on pain and operate within a framework of multidisciplinary pain rehabilitation to improve its effectiveness.
    Translational behavioral medicine. 03/2012; 2(1):106-16.

Full-text (2 Sources)

View
147 Downloads
Available from
May 20, 2014