Key Laboratory of Cognition & Personality, Southwest University, Chongqing, China.
Eur J Pain. 2012 Mar;16(3):390-400. doi: 10.1002/j.1532-2149.2011.00019.x. Epub 2011 Dec 19.
This experiment investigated the impact of brief training in acceptance versus distraction-based pain management on experimental pain tolerance in conditions of lower and higher potential threats. One hundred fifty-one pain-free Chinese adults (93 women, 58 men) randomly assigned to acceptance, distraction or pain education control conditions engaged in a cold pressor test (CPT) after reading validated orienting information designed to prime either the safety of the CPT (lower threat) or symptoms and damaging effects of exposure to extreme cold (higher threat). A 2 (threat level) × 3 (training strategy) analysis of covariance, controlling for pre-intervention pain tolerance and education, indicated the acceptance group was more pain tolerant than other training groups. This main effect was qualified by an interaction with threat level: in the lower threat condition, acceptance group participants were more pain tolerant than peers in the distraction or pain education groups while no training group differences were found in the higher threat condition. Supplementary analyses identified catastrophizing as a partial mediator of training group differences in pain tolerance. In summary, findings suggested acceptance-based coping is superior to distraction as a means of managing experimental pain, particularly when pain sensations are viewed as comparatively low in potential threat.
本实验研究了在低威胁和高威胁条件下，接受与分心的短期疼痛管理培训对实验性疼痛耐受的影响。151 名无痛的中国成年人（93 名女性，58 名男性）随机分配到接受、分心或疼痛教育对照组，在阅读旨在引发冷压测试（CPT）安全性（低威胁）或暴露于极冷症状和破坏性影响的验证导向信息后进行 CPT。协方差的 2（威胁水平）×3（训练策略）分析，控制了干预前的疼痛耐受和教育，表明接受组比其他训练组更能耐受疼痛。这一主要效应受到与威胁水平的交互作用的限制：在低威胁条件下，与分心或疼痛教育组的同伴相比，接受组的参与者更能耐受疼痛，而在高威胁条件下，没有发现训练组之间的差异。补充分析确定了灾难化是疼痛耐受训练组差异的部分中介因素。总之，研究结果表明，接受为基础的应对方式比分心更能有效地管理实验性疼痛，特别是当疼痛感觉被认为潜在威胁相对较低时。
