• Citer

Positive oral communication enhances pain management strategies

par Zarka, David ;MOINE, N.;GUIDEZ, Alexis A;Foucart, Jennifer
Référence Patient education and counseling, Patient education and counseling (109), https://doi-org.ezproxy.ulb.ac.be/10.1016/j.pec.2022.10.114
Publication Publié, 2023-04-01

Publication dans des actes

• Accès en ligne
• Détails
• Contenu
• Statistiques

Résumé :

Background: A positive communication about an intervention can lead to lower anxiety and better pain management through theincrease of the patient trust. However, an important issue is to understand how communication interacts with modalities of painmanagement. The present study aimed to determine whether a positive oral communication restricted to the effect of interventionhas an impact on analgesic effect of touch and verbal expression during an experimental induced pain.Methods: We compared pain rating (visual analog score, VAS) in 51 participants undergoing two cold pressor test (immersing a handin 1°C water during max. 5 min.) at T1-referential and T2-experimental. During T2, 2×2 groups received a pain management modality (verbal-group or touch-group) with or without previous oralstandardized communication (preconditioned, non-preconditionned), about the positive influence of the specific modality(respective to groups) on pain management. A last control groupreceived no modality nor communication at T2.Findings: We found an effect of time on the VAS (F(1,46) = 72.197,p < 0.001), as well as an interaction between the time and the group(F(4,46) = 3.023, p = 0,027). Post-hoc analysis showed a highly significant decreased VAS at T2 compared to T1 in the two preconditioned groups (p ? 0.001). dVAS analysis indicated that thepreconditioned verbal-group reported decreased pain compared tonon-preconditioned ones (p ≤ 0.038), while the preconditioningtouch-group show only a trend (p = 0.089).Discussion: These results suggested that simple positive communication enhances effect of pain management strategies.However, modalities of intervention seemed to modulate this effect. In particular, the intrusion of the experimenter in the intimate spaceof the patient during touch contact would mitigated the positive effect of previous communication in some patients. It is thereforeimportant that the communication cautiously consider the specificneeds of each patient towards what the treatment implies