P Mistiaen1, M van Osch1, L van Vliet1, J Howick2, F L Bishop3, Z Di Blasi4, J Bensing1,5, S van Dulmen1,6,7. 1. NIVEL, Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 2. Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, UK. 3. Faculty of Social and Human Sciences, University of Southampton, UK. 4. School of Applied Psychology, University College Cork, Ireland. 5. Department of Clinical and Health Psychology, Utrecht University, The Netherlands. 6. Department of Primary and Community Care, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, The Netherlands. 7. Faculty of Health Sciences, Buskerud and Vestfold University College, Drammen, Norway.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Communication between patients and health care practitioners is expected to benefit health outcomes. The objective of this review was to assess the effects of experimentally varied communication on clinical patients' pain. DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT: We searched in July 2012, 11 databases supplemented with forward and backward searches for (quasi-) randomized controlled trials in which face-to-face communication was manipulated. We updated in June 2015 using the four most relevant databases (CINAHL, Cochrane Central, Psychinfo, PubMed). RESULTS: Fifty-one studies covering 5079 patients were included. The interventions were separated into three categories: cognitive care, emotional care, procedural preparation. In all but five studies the outcome concerned acute pain. We found that, in general, communication has a small effect on (acute) pain. The 19 cognitive care studies showed that a positive suggestion may reduce pain, whereas a negative suggestion may increase pain, but effects are small. The 14 emotional care studies showed no evidence of a direct effect on pain, although four studies showed a tendency for emotional care lowering patients' pain. Some of the 23 procedural preparation interventions showed a weak to moderate effect on lowering pain. CONCLUSIONS: Different types of communication have a significant but small effect on (acute) pain. Positive suggestions and informational preparation seem to lower patients' pain. Communication interventions show a large variety in quality, complexity and methodological rigour; they often used multiple components and it remains unclear what the effective elements of communication are. Future research is warranted to identify the effective components.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Communication between patients and health care practitioners is expected to benefit health outcomes. The objective of this review was to assess the effects of experimentally varied communication on clinical patients' pain. DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT: We searched in July 2012, 11 databases supplemented with forward and backward searches for (quasi-) randomized controlled trials in which face-to-face communication was manipulated. We updated in June 2015 using the four most relevant databases (CINAHL, Cochrane Central, Psychinfo, PubMed). RESULTS: Fifty-one studies covering 5079 patients were included. The interventions were separated into three categories: cognitive care, emotional care, procedural preparation. In all but five studies the outcome concerned acute pain. We found that, in general, communication has a small effect on (acute) pain. The 19 cognitive care studies showed that a positive suggestion may reduce pain, whereas a negative suggestion may increase pain, but effects are small. The 14 emotional care studies showed no evidence of a direct effect on pain, although four studies showed a tendency for emotional care lowering patients' pain. Some of the 23 procedural preparation interventions showed a weak to moderate effect on lowering pain. CONCLUSIONS: Different types of communication have a significant but small effect on (acute) pain. Positive suggestions and informational preparation seem to lower patients' pain. Communication interventions show a large variety in quality, complexity and methodological rigour; they often used multiple components and it remains unclear what the effective elements of communication are. Future research is warranted to identify the effective components.
Authors: Jeremy Howick; Andrew Moscrop; Alexander Mebius; Thomas R Fanshawe; George Lewith; Felicity L Bishop; Patriek Mistiaen; Nia W Roberts; Eglė Dieninytė; Xiao-Yang Hu; Paul Aveyard; Igho J Onakpoya Journal: J R Soc Med Date: 2018-04-19 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: David Hohenschurz-Schmidt; Whitney Scott; Charlie Park; Georgios Christopoulos; Steven Vogel; Jerry Draper-Rodi Journal: Schmerz Date: 2022-07-14 Impact factor: 1.629
Authors: Pavel Goldstein; Elizabeth A Reynolds Losin; Steven R Anderson; Victoria R Schelkun; Tor D Wager Journal: J Pain Date: 2020-06-13 Impact factor: 5.820
Authors: Felicity L Bishop; Beverly Coghlan; Adam Wa Geraghty; Hazel Everitt; Paul Little; Michelle M Holmes; Dionysis Seretis; George Lewith Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-06-30 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Maddy Greville-Harris; Jennifer Bostock; Amy Din; Cynthia A Graham; George Lewith; Christina Liossi; Tim O'Riordan; Peter White; Lucy Yardley; Felicity L Bishop Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2016-06-10
Authors: Grace Petkovic; James E G Charlesworth; John Kelley; Franklin Miller; Nia Roberts; Jeremy Howick Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2015-11-26 Impact factor: 2.692