4.4 Article

The Role of Psychosocial Processes in the Development and Maintenance of Chronic Pain

期刊

JOURNAL OF PAIN
卷 17, 期 9, 页码 T70-T92

出版社

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpain.2016.01.001

关键词

Biopsychosocial; phenotype; chronic pain; affect; fear-avoidance

资金

  1. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
  2. ACTTION public-private partnership, from the FDA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The recently proposed Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION)-American Pain Society (APS) Pain Taxonomy (AAPT) provides an evidence-based, multidimensional, chronic pain classification system. Psychosocial factors play a crucial role within several dimensions of the taxonomy. In this article, we discuss the evaluation of psychosocial factors that influence the diagnosis and trajectory of chronic pain disorders. We review studies in individuals with a variety of persistent pain conditions, and describe evidence that psychosocial variables play key roles in conferring risk for the development of pain, in shaping long-term pain-related adjustment, and in modulating pain treatment outcomes. We consider general psychosocial variables such as negative affect, childhood trauma, and social support, as well as pain-specific psychosocial variables that include pain-related catastrophizing, self efficacy for managing pain, and pain-related coping. Collectively, the complexity and profound variability in chronic pain highlights the need to better understand the multidimensional array of interacting forces that determine the trajectory of chronic pain conditions. Perspective: The AAPT is an evidence-based chronic pain classification system in which psychosocial concepts and processes are essential in understanding the development of chronic pain and its effects. In this article we review psychosocial processes that influence the onset, exacerbation, and maintenance of chronic pain disorders. (C) 2016 by the American Pain Society

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据