Clinician and researcher responses to the term pain catastrophizing and whether new terminology is needed: Content analysis of international, cross-sectional, qualitative survey data

Pain catastrophizing is understood as a negative cognitive and emotional response to pain. Researchers, clinicians, advocates, and patients have reported stigmatizing effects of the term on patients when used clinically and in the media. This report describes the results of an international, observational, cross-sectional study investigation of clinician and researcher (professionals) perspectives on the term pain catastrophizing and whether new terminology is needed or desired. Open-ended electronic surveys were distributed to researchers and clinicians by collaborators, stakeholders, and through social media. Professionals reported on their familiarity with the term, its meaning and impacts, and their use of the term with patients. 1397 surveys from professionals in 46 countries (48.5% from the U.S.) were received. The sample was almost two-thirds female (61.3%), with a mean age of 56.67 (SD=4.04) years, and comprised of 78.6% clinicians (63.6%, pain specialists; n=698) and 20.3% researchers. The majority were familiar with the term (82.2%; n=1148). Among the 1098 clinicians, 33.6% had used the term in communication with patients. A content analysis of professionals' responses to open-ended questions is presented. Coded responses were synthesized into five content categories or themes: (1) pain catastrophizing is an exaggerated response to pain; (2) pain catastrophizing is an unhelpful response to pain; (3) the term pain catastrophizing is stigmatizing; (4) the term pain catastrophizing is clinically useful; (5) patients' perception of the term varies. Results highlight the continual controversy surrounding the term pain catastrophizing and the need for additional research and education to incorporate patient-centered approaches into clinical and public communications. Perspective: We present a content analysis of international clinician and researcher perspectives on the term pain catastrophizing. This investigation provides the largest depiction to date of the controversy surrounding pain catastrophizing and may guide future efforts to decrease stigma in patients with chronic pain and improve patient-clinician communication.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Pain
Published
2025-02-05
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpain.2025.105330
Primary Topic
Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Clinician and researcher responses to the term pain catastrophizing and whether new terminology is needed: Content analysis of international, cross-sectional, qualitative survey data

Sean Mackey, Laura Connoy, Anne Fuqua, Amanda B. Feinstein et al.
Journal of Pain
Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
article

Clinician and researcher responses to the term pain catastrophizing and whether new terminology is needed: Content analysis of international, cross-sectional, qualitative survey data

Sean Mackey, Laura Connoy, Anne Fuqua, Amanda B. Feinstein, Dokyoung S. You, Christin Veasley, Geert Crombez, Claire E. Ashton‐James, Judith A. Turner, Gadi Gilam, Paula Cowan, Fiona Webster, Christine T. Chambers, Hugh Boyd, Lance M. McCracken, Kathleen A. Sluka, Beth D. Darnall, Peter O’Sullivan, Devdeep Ahuja, Lynn M. Martire, Angela Nguyen, Maisa S. Ziadni, Rachel Cox
article en

Abstract

Pain catastrophizing is understood as a negative cognitive and emotional response to pain. Researchers, clinicians, advocates, and patients have reported stigmatizing effects of the term on patients when used clinically and in the media. This report describes the results of an international, observational, cross-sectional study investigation of clinician and researcher (professionals) perspectives on the term pain catastrophizing and whether new terminology is needed or desired. Open-ended electronic surveys were distributed to researchers and clinicians by collaborators, stakeholders, and through social media. Professionals reported on their familiarity with the term, its meaning and impacts, and their use of the term with patients. 1397 surveys from professionals in 46 countries (48.5% from the U.S.) were received. The sample was almost two-thirds female (61.3%), with a mean age of 56.67 (SD=4.04) years, and comprised of 78.6% clinicians (63.6%, pain specialists; n=698) and 20.3% researchers. The majority were familiar with the term (82.2%; n=1148). Among the 1098 clinicians, 33.6% had used the term in communication with patients. A content analysis of professionals' responses to open-ended questions is presented. Coded responses were synthesized into five content categories or themes: (1) pain catastrophizing is an exaggerated response to pain; (2) pain catastrophizing is an unhelpful response to pain; (3) the term pain catastrophizing is stigmatizing; (4) the term pain catastrophizing is clinically useful; (5) patients' perception of the term varies. Results highlight the continual controversy surrounding the term pain catastrophizing and the need for additional research and education to incorporate patient-centered approaches into clinical and public communications. Perspective: We present a content analysis of international clinician and researcher perspectives on the term pain catastrophizing. This investigation provides the largest depiction to date of the controversy surrounding pain catastrophizing and may guide future efforts to decrease stigma in patients with chronic pain and improve patient-clinician communication.

Journal of PainVol. 29
Uppsala University (SE), Western University (CA), University of Iowa (US), The University of Sydney (AU), Dalhousie University (CA), Pennsylvania State University (US), Genetic Alliance (US), Hebrew University of Jerusalem (IL), University of Washington (US), Curtin University (AU), University of Alabama at Birmingham (US), Ghent University (BE), Community Farm Alliance (US), Stanford Medicine (US), Trinity House (GB), Children's Healthcare of Atlanta (US), Stanford University (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 97%
Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.