Considering precision and utility when we talk about pain : comment on Cohen et al

Graham L. Moseley, Neil Pearson, Roland Reezigt, Victoria J. Madden, Mark R. Hutchinson, Martin Dunbar, Anneke J. Beetsma, Hayley B. Leake, Pete Moore, Laura Simons, Lauren Heathcote, Cormac Ryan, Carolyn Berryman, Amelia K. Mardon, Benedict M. Wand

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Cohen et al argue for precision in our language, an argument also being made by others. We argue that both precision and utility should be considered when determining which terms to keep and which to remove or change. Utility of our language should consider the side effects, risks and benefits for consumers. Inaccurate terms that offer utility and convenience but result in negative outcomes are very common in pain medicine, and medicine more broadly. We have taken aim at such metaphors as “frozen shoulder,” “heel spur,” “whiplash,” and “slipped disc” because we see evidence of their negative impact on consumer beliefs and behaviors. We have also argued against “pain signal,” “pain receptor,” “the pain gate,” the “source of pain,” and “pain pathways,” because they all directly undermine scientific discoveries that we now know improve consumer outcomes, for example that pain is multifactorial and that clinical interventions that look beyond the body part that hurts are both scientifically justified and empirically effective. We have argued that community-wide pain education should remove these simplistic and unfortunate trivializations of pain.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)178-181
Number of pages4
JournalJournal of Pain
Volume24
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 2023

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Considering precision and utility when we talk about pain : comment on Cohen et al'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this