MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4323532154 · doi:10.1002/ejp.2105

Reconceptualizing pain‐related behaviour: Introducing the concept of bodily doubt

2023· article· en· W4323532154 sur OpenAlexaff
Anthony Vincent Fernandez, Jan Hartvigsen, Susanne Ravn, Peter Stilwell, Alice Kongsted

Notice bibliographique

RevueEuropean Journal of Pain · 2023
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Établissements canadiensMcGill UniversityCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-MontréalCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in RehabilitationMcGill University Health Centre
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCertaintyFeelingChronic painPsychologyPsychological interventionPsychotherapistPain catastrophizingCoping (psychology)Health careMedicinePsychiatrySocial psychologyEpistemology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

When pain persists and becomes chronic, it can lead to disability, depression, loss of social identity, comorbidity and even premature death—and it is the most common reason people seek health care. Most treatments aim at relieving symptoms and preventing disability by helping people self-manage. A patient-centred approach requires that clinicians understand the lived experiences of people who seek their care and address these experiences in ways that are meaningful to them. In this commentary, we introduce the concept of bodily doubt, developed by the philosopher Havi Carel (2013), and explain how it can provide novel ways of understanding the chronic and disabling aspects of pain. To make sense of how people experience and respond to chronic pain, researchers and clinicians have developed a variety of concepts, including pain-related fear, pain self-efficacy and pain catastrophizing. These concepts are foundational for models of pain-related behaviour, assessment scales and therapeutic interventions. But pain researchers also acknowledge that these concepts risk presenting an overly simplistic picture of how we experience and respond to pain (Crombez et al., 2012). We therefore propose that the phenomenological concept of ‘pain-related bodily doubt’ can complement the concepts currently used in pain research and clinical practice. When we are healthy, able-bodied, and relatively free of pain, we operate with a tacit sense of bodily certainty: the feeling that our body will continue to function as it always has, performing daily activities and coping with new challenges. But, when injured or diagnosed with an illness, this certainty may be transformed into bodily doubt: the feeling that our body will fail to fulfil its previous functions, that our legs will no longer carry us up the stairs or that our stomach will not tolerate our next meal (Carel, 2013). There are at least three core dimensions of bodily doubt that flesh out this experience. First, it involves a loss of continuity, a sense that one's life cannot proceed as before. The previous sense of normalcy is lost—one can no longer rely on former abilities or bodily habits. Bodily doubt can therefore be a healthy adaptation to an impaired or ageing body. Second, it involves a loss of bodily transparency. Rather than fade into the background of awareness when engaged in everyday habitual activities, one's body may become an explicit object of attention. Third, it involves a loss of faith in one's body. Importantly, bodily doubt does not manifest only as an explicit belief. Rather, it is better understood as a tacit dimension of experience, a background feeling that shapes the implicit sense of what our body is capable of in any given situation. This account of tacitly doubting our bodily capacities when ill or injured can help us better understand the complex motivations behind pain-related behaviours. Concepts such as pain-related fear and pain catastrophizing, for instance, refer to beliefs or emotions that are typically construed as maladaptive (Quartana et al., 2009). Bodily doubt, by contrast, can be adaptive or maladaptive depending on one's situation and circumstance. Pain-related self-efficacy is perhaps the most similar concept to bodily doubt currently used within pain research and clinical practice (Nicholas, 2007). But it also differs in important respects. For example, self-efficacy typically refers to explicit beliefs about one's ability to perform an activity or cope with pain. The concepts of bodily certainty and doubt, by contrast, highlight a dynamic movement between implicit and explicit dimensions of experience. In some cases, a loss of capacity can shift how we perceive the possibilities our environment affords and how we interact with it, without attending to this shift. This implicit/explicit distinction may have important implications for how we communicate with and even conduct research on people living with chronic pain. Experiences that typically remain implicit are often difficult to reflect upon, much less put into words. Incorporating a new concept that is specifically meant to capture this dimension of experience may therefore be a boon for both research and clinical practice. Conceptual models have thus far been unable to adequately capture the full lived experience of chronic pain, which limits our ability to understand and treat it. A new concept of ‘pain-related bodily doubt’ may complement current concepts and models. However, before we can bring this concept into clinical use, it will require further conceptual development and testing. We will have to (a) conceptually distinguish the concept of bodily doubt from other pain-related concepts currently in use, (b) conduct qualitative studies to establish how the concept of bodily doubt resonates with people living with pain and (c) develop tools for measuring and assessing bodily doubt in clinical contexts. Ultimately, this concept should provide clinicians with a better understanding of how people experience their own bodies and environments when living with chronic pain and provide patients with a concept for effectively communicating their experiences with their clinicians. All authors contributed to the conceptualization, research and writing, and have approved the final version of the manuscript. None. None.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,021
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,800
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,743

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0210,004
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,018
Tête enseignante GPT0,271
Écart entre enseignants0,252 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations4
Publié2023
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueEuropean Journal of PainMême sujetMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationTravaux en français237 207