MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4323532154 · doi:10.1002/ejp.2105

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

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

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Pain · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsMcGill 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
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCertaintyFeelingChronic painPsychologyPsychological interventionPsychotherapistPain catastrophizingCoping (psychology)Health careMedicinePsychiatrySocial psychologyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from 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.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.040
Scholarly communication0.0080.012
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0110.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.252 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of PainSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207