Grover Michelle P, Jensen Mark P, Patterson David R, Gertz Kevin J, Day Melissa A
a The University of Queensland , Brisbane , Australia.
b The University of Washington , Seattle , USA.
Am J Clin Hypn. 2018 Jul;61(1):4-17. doi: 10.1080/00029157.2017.1419458.
Mindfulness-based interventions and hypnosis are efficacious treatments for addressing a large number of psychological and physical conditions, including chronic pain. However, there continues to be debate surrounding the relative uniqueness of the theorized mechanisms of these treatments-reflected by measures of mindfulness facets and hypnotizability-with some concern that there may be so much overlap as to make the mechanism constructs (and, therefore, the respective interventions) redundant. Given these considerations, the primary aim of the current study was to examine the degree of unique versus shared variance between two common measures of mindfulness facets and hypnotizability: the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire and the Stanford Hypnotic Clinical Scale. A cross-sectional survey was conducted with a sample of (N = 154) veterans with heterogeneous chronic pain conditions. Bivariate Pearson correlations were used to examine the associations between the target scales. Results showed that the correlations between the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire scales and Stanford Hypnotic Clinical Scale total score were uniformly weak, although significant negative correlations were found between mindfulness facets of observe and nonreact with hypnotizability (ps < 0.05). Thus, not only are the mindfulness and hypnotizability constructs unique, but when significantly associated, hypnotic suggestibility corresponds with a tendency to be less mindful. These findings have important implications for future research aimed toward matching patients to the treatment most likely to be of benefit, and suggest that matching patients on the basis of these theoretically derived "unique" moderators may hold potential.
基于正念的干预措施和催眠是治疗多种心理和身体状况(包括慢性疼痛)的有效方法。然而,围绕这些治疗的理论机制的相对独特性仍存在争议,这种独特性通过正念方面的测量和催眠易感性来体现,有人担心可能存在太多重叠,以至于使机制结构(以及相应的干预措施)变得多余。考虑到这些因素,本研究的主要目的是检验正念方面的两种常见测量方法和催眠易感性之间独特方差与共享方差的程度:即五因素正念问卷和斯坦福催眠临床量表。对154名患有不同慢性疼痛状况的退伍军人样本进行了横断面调查。使用双变量皮尔逊相关性来检验目标量表之间的关联。结果表明,五因素正念问卷量表与斯坦福催眠临床量表总分之间的相关性普遍较弱,尽管在观察和不反应的正念方面与催眠易感性之间发现了显著的负相关(p值<0.05)。因此,不仅正念和催眠易感性结构是独特的,而且当显著相关时,催眠暗示性与正念程度较低的倾向相对应。这些发现对未来旨在将患者与最可能受益的治疗方法相匹配的研究具有重要意义,并表明基于这些理论推导的“独特”调节因素对患者进行匹配可能具有潜力。