Perlu Network score measures the extent of a member’s network on Perlu based on their connections, Packs, and Collab activity.
Pain geek, PhD grad, passionate knowledge translator, photographer, partner, paradigm shifter, silversmith
They hypothesised that those describing high levels of pain, frustration with care or a wish for more or better pain medication would be associated with lower ratings of trustworthiness, while people living with pain would give higher ratings of trustworthiness compared with medical professionals. Pain narratives that expressed a low or moderate level of pain severity received significantly higher trust ratings compared to those narratives that expressed a high pain severity level (t (1,585.15)=9.97, P < .001). Similarly, pain narratives that did not express frustration with pain care received significantly higher trust ratings compared to those narratives that expressed frustration with pain care (t(1,2894.02)=2.59, P=.009). Finally, “when no frustration with pain care was expressed in the narrative, patient peers and clinicians gave similar ratings of trustworthiness, whereas clinicians gave lower trustworthiness ratings than patient peers when frustration with pain care was expressed in the narrative (F(1,2857.31)=7.16, P=.008).
We pin our hopes upon asking questions about what we hope the problem is, take histories from people who don’t know what we want to know about, use assessment techniques that are full of measurement error and attempt to derive a pattern amongst the noise We’d like to know that something will work for people who we know, once we start working in the real world, just don’t conform to our diagnostic boxes. Are there models of treatment in healthcare where being OK with not knowing, perhaps discovering together with the person coming for help, where we can feel safe enough to say “I’m not ready to do anything to you until I’ve got to know you better”, or better still We might prioritise learning about social systems, law, folkways and mores, “in” groups and “out” groups and how they work, and even review our beliefs about socio-economic status and why people might not prioritise their health.
What I think it is is a process of coming to grips with the fluctuations we all experience with pain and energy, recognising what we can and can’t do, being unafraid of our pain and knowing that it’s not going to kill us (though we may wish we could die from time to time), and finding small ways to go with our pain rather than fighting against it, wishing it wasn’t present, pretending it doesn’t have an effect when it does, trying to ignore it, or buckling underneath it and losing ourselves. In the pain management services I’ve worked in, and the approach I take both for myself and with the people I try to work with, using pharmacological, neuromodulatory, surgical and procedural approaches to reduce pain has always been integral to the overall plan. Sadly after working in this field for 30 years I do not think we are any closer to that elusive goal than we were when I began, except perhaps people aren’t going through quite so many useless and invasive surgeries with really nasty side effects as they did in the 1980’s. What I’m finding is there is so much emphasis on pain reduction that few people are willing to provide what is already known to help people’s distress and disability.
What hasn’t been as well-understood is whether resilience is associated with perceiving pain as a challenge, and therefore people are more likely to do things that may hurt, or whether people believe they can face the demands of experiencing pain (ie they have self efficacy for managing pain) and this is the path by which they get on with life. The authors recruited 307 Chinese adults with chronic back pain (189 women, 118 men), and asked them to complete a batch of questionnaires: Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (Chinese); Pain Appraisal Inventory (Short-form) Challenge; Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire; The catastrophising subscale of the Coping Strategies Questionnaire, the Chronic Pain Grade; The Multidimensional Pain Inventory-Screening (Affective Distress) subscale; and the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale. High resilience levels were related to elevations in primary appraisals of pain as a challenge, and in turn, higher resilience and challenge appraisal scores were each related to higher scores on the secondary appraisal measure of pain self-efficacy beliefs. Higher scores on resilience and pain self-efficacy as well as reductions in pain catastrophising were associated with lower overall dysfunction scores (Chronic Pain Grade, Affective Distress, and Depression).