People Have Mixed Reactions to Both Physiological and Psychological Explanations of Disproportionate Pain

There are two general frameworks that conceptualize pain that is more intense or persistent than expected based on measurable pathologic findings: the psychological (unhelpful thoughts and emotions) and the physiological (purported nervous system dysfunction, such as central sensitization). Some clinicians believe people will be more receptive to a physiological conceptualization. Prior quantitative research demonstrated that carefully crafted psychological explanations are rated similarly to crafted physiological explanations, with relatively mixed reactions. This qualitative study was undertaken in parallel with that quantitative study to help develop effective communication and treatment strategies by identifying specific thoughts and feelings (themes) regarding the physiological and psychological conceptualizations of disproportionate pain that make people more or less comfortable considering comprehensive, biopsychosocial treatment approaches.

What themes arise in patient thoughts and feelings regarding physiological and psychological conceptualizations of pain that is more intense or persistent than expected?

We sought to understand the experience of considering pain as a biopsychosocial experience (phenomenology approach) by studying the thoughts and feelings that arise as people seeking care for arm and back pain engage with physiological and psychological conceptualizations of pain that is more intense or persistent than one would expect based on the pathology. We recruited 29 patients presenting for upper extremity or back pain specialty care at one of two urban offices, intentionally recruiting people of various ages, genders, backgrounds, socioeconomic status, as well as type and duration of pain (purposive sampling). The 29 patients included 18 women and 11 men (16 married, 15 non-White, 20 with arm pain) with a median (interquartile range) age of 62 years (42 to 67). The interviews were conducted by a trained woman orthopaedic surgeon interviewer using a semistructured interview guide soliciting participants' thoughts and feelings about a physiological explanation (nerves in the central nervous system stuck in the on position can make pain more intense) and a psychological explanation (unhelpful thoughts and feelings of distress can make pain more intense) for pain more intense or persistent than expected. The interviews were transcribed and themes were identified as the data were collected. Based on current experimental evidence, including what is known about the physiological effects of thoughts, feelings, and context (placebo/nocebo effects), we assumed an underlying physiological basis for pain that is variably experienced and expressed (mixed postpositive/interpretive approach). Themes were identified in the interview transcripts systematically by two coders and then discussed with the entire research team to arrive at consensus. We stopped enrolling patients when the authors agreed that additional themes did not arise in five consecutive interviews.

The following themes and interpretations were derived from the analysis: Neither the physiological nor the psychological explanation for disproportionate pain (1) avoided the stigma associated with mental health, (2) was consistently understood, (3) provided a consistent sense of control, (4) consistently provided hope, and (5) represented the stress and emotion of disproportionate or persistent pain. The physiological explanation also generated mixed reactions regarding whether or not it: (1) was a useful point of conversation, (2) was reassuring or frightening, and (3) supported physiological or psychological treatments. The psychological explanation made some people feel worse.

People have mixed reactions to both physiological and psychological explanations of disproportionate pain. As such, without direction on content, communication might be most effective by focusing on relational aspects, such as emotional connection and trust.

Although there is room to improve the content of strategies for explaining more pain than expected to patients, our findings extend the discoveries of others in highlighting the need for tailored relational communication strategies that prioritize feeling heard, validated, and accompanied.