Pain
-
Randomized Controlled Trial
Can observational learning reinforce open-label placebo hypoalgesia?
Previous research has indicated that an open-label placebo can reduce pain in both healthy participants and patients with chronic pain. Because nondeceptive placebos seem to be an effective and more ethical alternative to deceptive placebos, optimizing this kind of treatment is essential. Observational learning was previously shown to induce the deceptive placebo effect; therefore, this study aimed to verify its effectiveness in fortifying the open-label placebo effect. ⋯ The placebo effect was successfully evoked in all experimental groups (OLP + OBL, OLP, and OBL), which confirms the effectiveness of both open-label and deceptive placebo interventions for pain reduction. However, the hypoalgesic effect was of similar magnitude in the OLP and OLP + OBL groups, which indicates that observation did not contribute to the effect. The results showed that reinforcing the open-label placebo by observational learning may be redundant, but more research is needed to confirm these findings.
-
Understanding, measuring, and mitigating pain-related suffering is a key challenge for both clinical care and pain research. However, there is no consensus on what exactly the concept of pain-related suffering includes, and it is often not precisely operationalized in empirical studies. Here, we (1) systematically review the conceptualization of pain-related suffering in the existing literature, (2) develop a definition and a conceptual framework, and (3) use machine learning to cross-validate the results. ⋯ We also offer a conceptual framework of pain-related suffering distinguishing 8 dimensions: social, physical, personal, spiritual, existential, cultural, cognitive, and affective. Our data show that pain-related suffering is a multidimensional phenomenon that is closely related to but distinct from pain itself. The present analysis provides a roadmap for further theoretical and empirical development.
-
Individuals' appraisals regarding the injustice of their pain or physical injury have emerged as a significant risk factor for worse physical and psychological outcomes. Injustice appraisals are defined by perceptions of external blame for pain or injury and viewing pain or injury as a source of irreparable loss. To date, research on the impact of injustice appraisal has been primarily cross sectional, and existing longitudinal studies have examined injustice appraisals at only 2 time points in the context of rehabilitation treatment. ⋯ This study is the first naturalistic prospective analysis of injustice appraisal following trauma admission within the American healthcare system. Findings indicate that injustice appraisals do not naturally decrease in the aftermath of traumatic injury and may be a risk factor for poorer physical and psychological recovery. Future research should examine additional sociodemographic and psychosocial factors that may contribute to elevated injustice appraisal, as well as ways of addressing the potential deleterious impact of injustice appraisals in treatment settings.
-
Although many individuals with chronic pain use analgesics, the methods used in many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) do not sufficiently account for confounding by differential post-randomization analgesic use. This may lead to underestimation of average treatment effects and diminished power. We introduce (1) a new measure-the Numeric Rating Scale of Underlying Pain without concurrent Analgesic use (NRS-UP (A) )-which can shift the estimand of interest in an RCT to target effects of a treatment on pain intensity in the hypothetical situation where analgesic use was not occurring at the time of outcome assessment; and (2) a new pain construct-an individuals' perceived effect of analgesic use on pain intensity (E A ). ⋯ More negative values of E A (ie, greater perceived benefit) were associated with a greater number of analgesics used but not with pain intensity, analgesic type, or opioid dose. The NRS-UP (A) and E A were significantly associated with future analgesic use 6 months later, but the conventional pain NRS was not. Future research is needed to determine whether the NRS-UP (A), used as a secondary outcome may allow pain RCTs to target alternative estimands with clinical relevance.