The Clinical journal of pain
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical Trial
Detecting deception in facial expressions of pain: accuracy and training.
Clinicians tend to assign greater weight to nonverbal expression than to patient self-report when judging the location and severity of pain. However, patients can be successful at dissimulating facial expressions of pain, as posed expressions resemble genuine expressions in the frequency and intensity of pain-related facial actions. The present research examined individual differences in the ability to discriminate genuine and deceptive facial pain displays and whether different models of training in cues to deception would improve detection skills. ⋯ For each condition, the participants rated pain intensity and unpleasantness, decided which category each of the 4 video clips represented, and described cues they used to arrive at decisions. There were significant individual differences in accuracy, with females more accurate than males, but accuracy was unrelated to past pain experience, empathy, or the number or type of facial cues used. Immediate corrective feedback led to significant improvements in participants' detection accuracy, whereas there was no support for the use of an information-based training program.
-
Review Comparative Study
Is there a relationship between nonorganic physical findings (Waddell signs) and secondary gain/malingering?
This is a structured evidence based review of all available studies addressing the concept of nonorganic findings (Waddell signs) and their potential relationship to secondary gain and malingering. The objective of this review is to determine what evidence, if any, exists for a relationship between Waddell signs and secondary gain and malingering. Waddell signs are a group of 8 physical findings divided into 5 categories, the presence of which has been alleged at times to indicate the presence of secondary gain and malingering. ⋯ Overall, 75% of these reports reported no association between Waddell signs and the 4 possible methods of identifying patients with secondary gain and/or malingering. Based on the above results, it was concluded that there was little evidence for the claims of an association between Waddell signs and secondary gain and malingering. The preponderance of the evidence points to the opposite: no association.
-
Self-report plays a primary but not exclusive role in pain assessment. As is true of all self-reported experiences, under certain circumstances, the report of chronic pain can be distorted and misrepresented. ⋯ The current paper provides a rationale for the use of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) in the comprehensive assessment of chronic pain with an emphasis on the advantage the MMPI-2 provides in the detection of response bias or malingering. A critical review of available MMPI-2 validity scales is presented, and recommendations for use of these scales in the evaluation of patients with chronic pain are made.
-
Malingering--the willful, deliberate, and fraudulent feigning or exaggeration of illness--was originally described as a means of avoiding military service. In present-day clinical practice, malingering may occur in circumstances where the person wishes to avoid legal responsibility or in situations where compensation or some other benefit might be obtained. In law, the term malingering is used in relation to persons to whom military regulations apply; in other situations, malingering is regarded as fraud and may lead to charges of perjury or criminal fraud. ⋯ In this article, we will review the literature on pain and malingering and discuss attempts that have been made to develop methods and guidelines for the detection of malingered pain. There are, however, no valid clinical methods of assessment of possible malingering of pain. In our view, the ultimate issue of the veracity of the plaintiff is for the Court to decide, and epithets such as "malingerer" have no place in reports prepared for legal purposes by health care professionals.
-
To provide insights into the mechanisms underlying central hypersensitivity, review the evidence on central hypersensitivity in chronic pain after whiplash injury, highlight reflections on the clinical relevance of central hypersensitivity, and offer a perspective of treatment of central hypersensitivity. ⋯ Central hypersensitivity may explain exaggerated pain in the presence of minimal nociceptive input arising from minimally damaged tissues. This could account for pain and disability in the absence of objective signs of tissue damage in patients with whiplash. Central hypersensitivity may provide a common neurobiological framework for the integration of peripheral and supraspinal mechanisms in the pathophysiology of chronic pain after whiplash. Therapy studies are needed.