IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0199814.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Psychological, cognitive factors and contextual influences in pain and pain-related suffering as revealed by a combined qualitative and quantitative assessment approach

Author

Listed:
  • Smadar Bustan
  • Ana Maria Gonzalez-Roldan
  • Christoph Schommer
  • Sandra Kamping
  • Martin Löffler
  • Michael Brunner
  • Herta Flor
  • Fernand Anton

Abstract

Previous psychophysiological research suggests that pain measurement needs to go beyond the assessment of Pain Intensity and Unpleasantness by adding the evaluation of Pain-Related Suffering. Based on this three-dimensional approach, we attempted to elucidate who is more likely to suffer by identifying reasons that may lead individuals to report Pain and Pain-Related Suffering more than others. A sample of 24 healthy participants (age range 18–33) underwent four different sessions involving the evaluation of experimentally induced phasic and tonic pain. We applied two decision tree models to identify variables (selected from psychological questionnaires regarding pain and descriptors from post-session interviews) that provided a qualitative characterization of the degrees of Pain Intensity, Unpleasantness and Suffering and assessed the respective impact of contextual influences. The overall classification accuracy of the decision trees was 75% for Intensity, 77% for Unpleasantness and 78% for Pain-Related Suffering. The reporting of suffering was predominantly associated with fear of pain and active cognitive coping strategies, pain intensity with bodily competence conveying strength and resistance and unpleasantness with the degree of fear of pain and catastrophizing. These results indicate that the appraisal of the three pain dimensions was largely determined by stable psychological constructs. They also suggest that individuals manifesting higher active coping strategies may suffer less despite enhanced pain and those who fear pain may suffer even under low pain. The second decision tree model revealed that suffering did not depend on pain alone, but that the complex rating-related decision making can be shifted by situational factors (context, emotional and cognitive). The impact of coping and fear of pain on individual Pain-Related Suffering may highlight the importance of improving cognitive coping strategies in clinical settings.

Suggested Citation

  • Smadar Bustan & Ana Maria Gonzalez-Roldan & Christoph Schommer & Sandra Kamping & Martin Löffler & Michael Brunner & Herta Flor & Fernand Anton, 2018. "Psychological, cognitive factors and contextual influences in pain and pain-related suffering as revealed by a combined qualitative and quantitative assessment approach," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(7), pages 1-21, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0199814
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0199814
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0199814
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0199814&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0199814?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0199814. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.