Petrini Laura, Arendt-Nielsen Lars
Center for Neuroplasticity and Pain, SMI, Department of Health Science and Technology, Faculty of Medicine, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.
Front Psychol. 2020 Dec 16;11:603420. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.603420. eCollection 2020.
The present narrative review addresses issues concerning the defining criteria and conceptual underpinnings of pain catastrophizing. To date, the concept of pain catastrophizing has been extensively used in many clinical and experimental contexts and it is considered as one of the most important psychological correlate of pain chronicity and disability. Although its extensive use, we are still facing important problems related to its defining criteria and conceptual understanding. At present, there is no general theoretical agreement of what catastrophizing really is. The lack of a consensus on its definition and conceptual issues has important consequences on the choice of the pain management approaches, defining and identifying problems, and promoting novel research. Clinical and research work in absence of a common theoretical ground is often trivial. It is very surprising that clinical and experimental work has grown extensively in the past years, without a common ground in the form of a clear definition of pain catastrophizing and overview of its conceptual basis. Improving the efficacy and efficiency of pan catastrophizing related treatments requires an understanding of the theoretical construct. So far, most interventions have only demonstrated modest effects in reducing pain catastrophizing. Therefore, clarifying the construct may be an important precursor for developing more targeted and effective interventions, thereby easing some of the burden related to this aspect of pain. In our review, we have extracted and de-constructed common elements that emerge from different theoretical models with the aim to understand the concept of catastrophizing, which components can be modulated by psychological interventions, and the general role in pain processing. The analysis of the literature has indicated essential key elements to explain pain catastrophizing: emotional regulation, catastrophic worry (as repetitive negative thinking), rumination, behavioral inhibition and behavioral activation (BIS/BAS) systems, and interoceptive sensitivity. The present paper attempts to integrate these key elements with the aim to re-compose and unify the concept within a modern biopsychosocial interpretation of catastrophizing.
本叙述性综述探讨了与疼痛灾难化的定义标准和概念基础相关的问题。迄今为止,疼痛灾难化的概念已在许多临床和实验背景中广泛使用,并且它被认为是疼痛慢性化和残疾的最重要心理关联因素之一。尽管其被广泛使用,但我们仍面临与其定义标准和概念理解相关的重要问题。目前,对于灾难化究竟是什么尚无普遍的理论共识。在其定义和概念问题上缺乏共识,对疼痛管理方法的选择、问题的定义和识别以及促进新研究都有重要影响。缺乏共同理论基础的临床和研究工作往往是微不足道的。非常令人惊讶的是,在过去几年中,临床和实验工作大量增加,却没有以对疼痛灾难化的明确定义及其概念基础概述的形式形成共同基础。提高与疼痛灾难化相关治疗的疗效和效率需要对理论结构有所理解。到目前为止,大多数干预措施在减轻疼痛灾难化方面仅显示出适度的效果。因此,阐明这一结构可能是开发更具针对性和有效性干预措施的重要前提,从而减轻与疼痛这一方面相关的一些负担。在我们的综述中,我们提取并解构了不同理论模型中出现的共同要素,旨在理解灾难化的概念、哪些成分可通过心理干预进行调节以及其在疼痛处理中的总体作用。文献分析表明了解释疼痛灾难化的关键要素:情绪调节、灾难性担忧(作为重复性消极思维)、沉思、行为抑制和行为激活(BIS/BAS)系统以及内感受敏感性。本文试图整合这些关键要素,以期在对灾难化的现代生物心理社会解释中重新构建并统一这一概念。