注意力分散和感觉监测对慢性疼痛患者的疗效:一项荟萃分析。
The efficacy of attentional distraction and sensory monitoring in chronic pain patients: A meta-analysis.
机构信息
Institute for Health and Behaviour, INSIDE, University of Luxembourg, Luxembourg; Department of Experimental Clinical and Health Psychology, Ghent University, Belgium.
Department of Experimental Clinical and Health Psychology, Ghent University, Belgium.
出版信息
Clin Psychol Rev. 2018 Feb;59:16-29. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2017.10.008. Epub 2017 Oct 28.
Attentional strategies, such as distraction and sensory monitoring, are often offered to reduce pain and pain-related distress. However, evidence for their efficacy in chronic pain patients is equivocal. We report a meta-analysis on the efficacy of distraction and sensory monitoring in chronic pain patients, and explore possible methodological and theoretical moderators. The scientific literature was searched for relevant articles, which were coded for methodological quality and several theoretical and methodological moderator variables. Only 10 articles fulfilled the search criteria. Eight studies allowed us to compare distraction with a control condition, two studies to compare sensory monitoring with a control condition, and four studies to compare the effect of distraction with the effect of sensory monitoring. Overall, results indicate that distraction did not differ from control in altering pain experience (k=8; Hedges' g=0.10, ns) and distress (k=2; Hedges' g=0.549). Sensory monitoring did also not alter pain experience (k=2; Hedges' g=-0.21, ns) and distress (k=1; Hedges' g=-0.191, ns). We found no evidence to support the superiority of distraction or sensory monitoring in altering pain compared to control conditions. We offer guidance for future theory-driven research to investigate distraction and sensory monitoring in this largely unexplored field, albeit one replete with methodological difficulties.
注意策略,如分心和感觉监测,常被用来减轻疼痛和与疼痛相关的痛苦。然而,关于它们在慢性疼痛患者中的疗效的证据尚无定论。我们报告了一项关于分心和感觉监测对慢性疼痛患者疗效的荟萃分析,并探讨了可能的方法学和理论调节因素。对相关文献进行了科学检索,对方法学质量和几个理论和方法学调节变量进行了编码。只有 10 篇文章符合搜索标准。八项研究允许我们将分心与对照条件进行比较,两项研究将感觉监测与对照条件进行比较,四项研究将分心的效果与感觉监测的效果进行比较。总的来说,结果表明分心并没有改变疼痛体验(k=8;Hedges' g=0.10,ns)和痛苦(k=2;Hedges' g=0.549)。感觉监测也没有改变疼痛体验(k=2;Hedges' g=-0.21,ns)和痛苦(k=1;Hedges' g=-0.191,ns)。我们没有证据支持分心或感觉监测在改变疼痛方面优于对照条件。我们为未来的理论驱动研究提供了指导,以在这个基本上尚未开发的领域中研究分心和感觉监测,尽管这个领域充满了方法学上的困难。