Service providers' perception of affective influences on decision-making about treatments for chronic pain

Service providers working with people who have complex health problems like chronic pain are considered at particular risk from the heavy emotional content of these interactions (frustration, guilt, hostility). For the good of service users and in the interests of healthcare workers' own health it is important for them to employ reflective practice acknowledging these issues. Service providers are inculcated to negate the affective domain of their practice despite the growing awareness that wellbeing can no longer be envisioned as a linear (cause and effect) process divorced from socio-cultural influences and attendant values and beliefs. The aim of this report is to examine to what degree service users (SU) and service providers (SP) believe their decisions about treatment importance are influenced by self-image and emotion.

These results are extrapolated from a larger study based on a postal questionnaire that went to members of the Pain Society (UK Chapter of IASP) and service users belonging to chronic pain support groups in the North-West of England. The question of interest in this report asked participants to identify their level of agreement with statements about how four themes influence their decision-making about whether a treatment is important. The themes (coherence, purposiveness, self-image and affect) arise from Chapman's model of consciousness and pain.

Only 20.5% of service providers rated the influence of self-image (what someone like me would think) as 3 (mostly) or 4 (completely). Service provider rating for the influence of affect (how this treatment makes me feel) were similarly low with only 19.4% of respondents selecting a rating of 3 or 4. In marked contrast, 73.3% of the service users selected self-image and 92.9% selected affect as a strong influence.

Service providers felt that affect and self-image had little influence on their decision-making. However, there is growing evidence in the literature to suggest that it is not possible, nor preferable, to divorce emotion from the clinical encounter.