4.6 Article

Patients who display protective pain behaviors are viewed as less likable, less dependable, and less likely to return to work

Journal

PAIN
Volume 153, Issue 4, Pages 843-849

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1016/j.pain.2012.01.007

Keywords

Pain behaviors; Pain intensity; Readiness to work; Personality traits

Funding

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research
  2. Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In the present study, participants (ie, observers) watched video sequences of patients with chronic back pain performing a physically demanding lifting task. Participants were asked to make judgments about patients' levels of pain and readiness to work. For each patient, observers were also asked to make judgments about personality traits relevant to work performance and employment. The primary objective of this study was to examine the differential influence of communicative and protective pain behaviors on observers' judgments about patients' pain intensity and readiness to work. Consistent with previous research, analyses indicated that patients displaying either communicative (eg, facial expressions) or protective (eg, guarding) pain behaviors were perceived as having significantly more pain than patients displaying no pain behavior. Analyses also revealed that patients displaying protective pain behaviors were perceived as being significantly less likable, less dependable, and less ready to work than patients displaying other forms of pain behavior. Discussion addresses the processes by which pain behaviors might influence observers' judgments about patients' personality traits and readiness to work. Implications of the present findings for clinical practice and the management of patients presenting with pain conditions are also discussed. (C) 2012 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of International Association for the Study of Pain.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available