Journal article
Clinician and Researcher Responses to the Term Pain Catastrophizing and Whether New Terminology is Needed: Content Analysis of International, Cross-Sectional, Qualitative Survey Data
The journal of pain, Vol.25, 105330
04/2025
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpain.2025.105330
PMCID: PMC11929406
PMID: 39921100
Abstract
Pain catastrophizing is understood as a negative cognitive and emotional response to pain. Researchers, clinicians, advocates, and patients have reported stigmatizing effects of the term on patients when used clinically and in the media. This report describes the results of an international, observational, cross-sectional study investigation of clinician and researcher (professionals) perspectives on the term pain catastrophizing and whether new terminology is needed or desired. Open-ended electronic surveys were distributed to researchers and clinicians by collaborators, stakeholders, and through social media. Professionals reported on their familiarity with the term, its meaning and impacts, and their use of the term with patients. 1,397 surveys from professionals in 46 countries (48.5% from the U.S.) were received. The sample was almost two-thirds female (61.3%), with a mean age of 56.67 (SD=4.04) years, and comprised of 78.6% clinicians (63.6%, pain specialists; n=698) and 20.3% researchers. The majority were familiar with the term (82.2%; n=1148). Among the 1,098 clinicians, 33.6% had used the term in communication with patients. A content analysis of professionals' responses to open-ended questions is presented. Coded responses were synthesized into five content categories or themes: (1) pain catastrophizing is an exaggerated response to pain; (2) pain catastrophizing is an unhelpful response to pain; (3) the term pain catastrophizing is stigmatizing; (4) the term pain catastrophizing is clinically useful; (5) patients' perception of the term varies. Results highlight the continual controversy surrounding the term pain catastrophizing and the need for additional research and education to incorporate patient-centered approaches into clinical and public communications. Perspective: We present a content analysis of international clinician and researcher perspectives on the term pain catastrophizing. This investigation provides the largest depiction to date of the controversy surrounding pain catastrophizing and may guide future efforts to decrease stigma in patients with chronic pain and improve patient-clinician communication.Pain catastrophizing is understood as a negative cognitive and emotional response to pain. Researchers, clinicians, advocates, and patients have reported stigmatizing effects of the term on patients when used clinically and in the media. This report describes the results of an international, observational, cross-sectional study investigation of clinician and researcher (professionals) perspectives on the term pain catastrophizing and whether new terminology is needed or desired. Open-ended electronic surveys were distributed to researchers and clinicians by collaborators, stakeholders, and through social media. Professionals reported on their familiarity with the term, its meaning and impacts, and their use of the term with patients. 1,397 surveys from professionals in 46 countries (48.5% from the U.S.) were received. The sample was almost two-thirds female (61.3%), with a mean age of 56.67 (SD=4.04) years, and comprised of 78.6% clinicians (63.6%, pain specialists; n=698) and 20.3% researchers. The majority were familiar with the term (82.2%; n=1148). Among the 1,098 clinicians, 33.6% had used the term in communication with patients. A content analysis of professionals' responses to open-ended questions is presented. Coded responses were synthesized into five content categories or themes: (1) pain catastrophizing is an exaggerated response to pain; (2) pain catastrophizing is an unhelpful response to pain; (3) the term pain catastrophizing is stigmatizing; (4) the term pain catastrophizing is clinically useful; (5) patients' perception of the term varies. Results highlight the continual controversy surrounding the term pain catastrophizing and the need for additional research and education to incorporate patient-centered approaches into clinical and public communications. Perspective: We present a content analysis of international clinician and researcher perspectives on the term pain catastrophizing. This investigation provides the largest depiction to date of the controversy surrounding pain catastrophizing and may guide future efforts to decrease stigma in patients with chronic pain and improve patient-clinician communication.
Details
- Title: Subtitle
- Clinician and Researcher Responses to the Term Pain Catastrophizing and Whether New Terminology is Needed: Content Analysis of International, Cross-Sectional, Qualitative Survey Data
- Creators
- Hannah BoydDokyoung S You - Stanford MedicineAngela Nguyen - Stanford UniversityLaura Connoy - Western UniversityDevdeep AhujaChristine Chambers - Dalhousie UniversityPenny CowanRachel Cox - Stanford UniversityGeert Crombez - Ghent UniversityAmanda B Feinstein - Children's Healthcare of AtlantaAnne Fuqua - University of Alabama at BirminghamGadi Gilam - Hebrew University of JerusalemSean Mackey - Stanford MedicineLance M McCracken - Uppsala UniversityLynn M Martire - Pennsylvania State UniversityKathleen Sluka - University of IowaPeter O'SullivanJudith A Turner - University of WashingtonChristin VeasleyMaisa S Ziadni - Stanford UniversityClaire E Ashton-James - The University of SydneyFiona Webster - Western UniversityBeth D Darnall - Stanford University
- Resource Type
- Journal article
- Publication Details
- The journal of pain, Vol.25, 105330
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.jpain.2025.105330
- PMID
- 39921100
- PMCID
- PMC11929406
- NLM abbreviation
- J Pain
- ISSN
- 1528-8447
- eISSN
- 1528-8447
- Publisher
- CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE
- Grant note
- Association (ACPA)FWO-FlandersVersus Arthritis UKRIStand Up against CancerGhent UniversityNational Institutes of Health NIDA: K24 DA053564 NIA: R01 AG063241
Association (ACPA) and the Chronic Pain Research Alliance for their scientific oversight. Geert Crombez receives research funding from FWO-Flanders, Versus Arthritis UKRI (Advanced Pain Discovery Plat-form PAINSTORM) , Stand Up against Cancer, and Ghent University. He is consultant for MoveUp regarding the implementation of behavioural change techniques in digital interventions. The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. This effort was supported in part by grants from the National Institutes of Health NIDA K24 DA053564 (BDD) and NIA R01 AG063241 (LMM) .
- Language
- English
- Electronic publication date
- 02/05/2025
- Date published
- 04/2025
- Academic Unit
- Iowa Neuroscience Institute; Nursing; Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation Science; Neuroscience and Pharmacology
- Record Identifier
- 9984786441002771
Metrics
10 Record Views