Prins B, Decuypere A, Van Damme S
Department of Experimental Clinical and Health Psychology, Ghent University, Belgium.
Eur J Pain. 2014 Oct;18(9):1307-15. doi: 10.1002/j.1532-2149.2014.491.x. Epub 2014 Mar 26.
The aim of this study was to investigate whether the perception of experimental pain was different during a mindfulness manipulation than during a distraction manipulation. Furthermore, it was examined if effects were moderated by dispositional pain catastrophizing.
Undergraduate students (n = 51) completed self-report measures of pain catastrophizing and mindfulness. Subsequently, they were administered a series of mildly painful heat stimuli, which they had to rate. During pain induction, participants listened to either a pre-recorded mindfulness instruction (mindfulness group) or a pre-recorded story (distraction group).
After controlling for baseline experimental pain ratings, we found no overall group effect, indicating that there was no difference in experienced pain between the mindfulness group and the distraction group. However, a significant moderation effect was found. When dispositional pain catastrophizing was high, pain was less pronounced in the mindfulness group than in the distraction group, whereas the opposite effect was found when the level of pain catastrophizing was low.
The findings suggest that in persons with a high level of catastrophic thinking about pain, mindfulness-based coping may be a better approach than distraction.
本研究的目的是调查在正念操作期间与分心操作期间,对实验性疼痛的感知是否存在差异。此外,还研究了这些效应是否会受到特质性疼痛灾难化思维的调节。
本科生(n = 51)完成了疼痛灾难化思维和正念的自我报告测量。随后,他们接受了一系列轻度疼痛的热刺激,并对其进行评分。在疼痛诱导期间,参与者要么听预先录制的正念指导语(正念组),要么听预先录制的故事(分心组)。
在控制了基线实验性疼痛评分后,我们未发现总体组效应,这表明正念组和分心组在经历的疼痛方面没有差异。然而,发现了显著的调节效应。当特质性疼痛灾难化思维程度较高时,正念组的疼痛比分心组轻,而当疼痛灾难化思维程度较低时,结果则相反。
研究结果表明,对于对疼痛有高度灾难性思维的人来说,基于正念的应对方式可能比分心更好。