Dillworth Tiara, Jensen Mark P
Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Open Pain J. 2010;3(1):39-51. doi: 10.2174/1876386301003010039.
Several controlled trials have demonstrated that hypnosis is an efficacious treatment for chronic pain. However, less attention has been given to the specific procedures and suggestions used in hypnotic treatments in research. The goal of this review was to address the issue of differences in the content of hypnotic suggestions, including pain management suggestions, non-pain related suggestions, and posthypnotic suggestions, in the context of published clinical trials of hypnosis for chronic pain management. This review focused on the types of suggestions used in twenty five studies comparing hypnosis to active treatments (e.g., relaxation, biofeedback), non-treatment control groups (e.g., standard care/wait-list control, supportive attention), or both in adult populations with various chronic pain conditions. Overall, these studies found hypnosis to be more effective than non-treatment control groups and similarly effective when compared to active treatments on pain-related outcomes when either pain-related suggestions or non-pain related suggestions were used. However, for studies that included both pain-specific and non-pain related suggestions, hypnosis was found to be superior to active treatments on a variety of pain-related outcomes.
多项对照试验表明,催眠是治疗慢性疼痛的一种有效方法。然而,研究中对催眠治疗所使用的具体程序和暗示关注较少。本综述的目的是在已发表的关于催眠治疗慢性疼痛的临床试验背景下,探讨催眠暗示内容的差异问题,包括疼痛管理暗示、非疼痛相关暗示和催眠后暗示。本综述聚焦于25项研究中所使用的暗示类型,这些研究将催眠与积极治疗(如放松、生物反馈)、非治疗对照组(如标准护理/等待名单对照、支持性关注)进行比较,或者在患有各种慢性疼痛疾病的成年人群中同时与这两者进行比较。总体而言,这些研究发现,当使用疼痛相关暗示或非疼痛相关暗示时,催眠比非治疗对照组更有效,并且与积极治疗相比,在疼痛相关结果方面效果相似。然而,对于同时包括疼痛特异性和非疼痛相关暗示的研究,发现催眠在各种疼痛相关结果方面优于积极治疗。