Why are assumptions passed off as established knowledge?

Perspectives on the insidious nature of pain metaphor: we literally need to change our metaphors

Metaphorical language is used to convey one thing as representative or symbolic of something else. Metaphor is used in figurative language but is much more than a means of delivering "poetic imagination". A metaphor is a conceptual tool for categorising, organizing, thinking about, and ultimately shaping reality. Thus, metaphor underpins the way humans think. Our viewpoint is that metaphorical thought and communication contribute to "painogenicity", the tendency of socio-ecological environments (settings) to promote the persistence of pain. In this perspectives article, we explore the insidious nature of metaphor used in pain language and conceptual models of pain. We explain how metaphor shapes mental organisation to govern the way humans perceive, navigate and gain insight into the nature of the world, i.e., creating experience. We explain how people use metaphors to "project" their private sensations, feelings, and thoughts onto objects and events in the external world. This helps people to understand their pain and promotes sharing of pain experience with others, including health care professionals. We explore the insidious nature of "warmongering" and damage-based metaphors in daily parlance and demonstrate how this is detrimental to health and wellbeing. We explore how metaphors shape the development and communication of complex, abstract ideas, theories, and models and how scientific understanding of pain is metaphorical in nature. We argue that overly simplistic neuro-mechanistic metaphors of pain contribute to fallacies and misnomers and an unhealthy focus on biomedical research, in the hope of developing medical interventions that "prevent pain transmission [sic]". We advocate reconfiguring pain language towards constructive metaphors that foster a salutogenic view of pain, focusing on health and well-being. We advocate reconfiguring metaphors to align with contemporary pain science, to encourage acceptance of non-medicalised strategies to aid health and well-being. We explore the role of enactive metaphors to facilitate reconfiguration. We conclude that being cognisant of the pervasive nature of metaphors will assist progress toward a more coherent conceptual understanding of pain and the use of healthier pain language. We hope our article catalyses debate and reflection.

Pain through the perspective of art and creativity: insights from the Unmasking Pain project

People struggle to tell their story of living with pain and when they do it is articulated in a way that may not be understood, heard or taken seriously. Unmasking Pain is an artist-led project that explored creative approaches to tell stories of life with pain. The project was led by a dance theatre company that specialises in storytelling and emotional experiences for players and audiences. The project involved artists and people living with ongoing pain co-creating activities and environments to curiously explore "oneself", through imagination and creative expression. This article discusses insights and perspectives emerging from the project. The project revealed the power of art to make-sense of oneself with or without pain, and how art facilitates expression of complex inner experience and personal stories. People described Unmasking Pain as "explorative joy despite pain", and "a new set of rules" that contrasts with those experienced during clinical encounters. We discuss how art has the potential to improve clinical encounters and promote health and well-being, and whether artist-led activities are an intervention, therapy, or something else. Pain rehabilitation specialists from the project described Unmasking Pain as "freeing-up thinking", allowing conceptual thought beyond the biopsychosocial model of pain. We conclude that art has the potential to shift people living with pain from "I can't do, I am not willing to do it" to "Perhaps I can, I'll give it a go, I enjoyed".

Understanding pain in modern society: insights from attitudes to pain in the Medieval Period

Historical records provide knowledge about the way people lived in the past. Our perspective is that historical analyses of the Medieval Period provide insights to inform a fuller understanding of pain in the present era. In this article, we appraise critiques of the writings of people living with pain during the mid (high) to late Medieval Period (c. 1,000-1,500 AD) to gain insights into the nature, attitudes, lived experience, and sense-making of pain. In the Medieval Period, pain was understood in terms of Galen's four humours and the Church's doctrine of pain as a "divine gift", "punishment for sin" and/or "sacrificial offering". Many treatments for pain were precursors of those used in modern time and society considered pain to be a "shared experience". We argue that sharing personal stories of life is a fundamental human attribute to foster social cohesion, and that nowadays sharing personal stories about pain is difficult during biomedically-focussed time-constrained clinical consultations. Exploring pain through a medieval lens demonstrates the importance of sharing stories of living with pain that are flexible in meaning, so that people can connect with a sense of self and their social world. We advocate a role for community-centred approaches to support people in the creation and sharing of their personal pain stories. Contributions from non-biomedical disciplines, such as history and the arts, can inform a fuller understanding of pain and its prevention and management.

Healthcare providers have insufficient up-to-date knowledge of lower limb sports injuries, and their knowledge is similar to that of athletes

BACKGROUND

Being up-to-date with evidence-based knowledge of lower limb sports injuries is essential for Healthcare professionals (HCPs).

PURPOSE

To assess whether HCPs possess up-to-date knowledge of lower limb sports injuries by comparing their knowledge to that of athletes.

METHODS

With an expert panel, we developed an online quiz of 10 multiple-choice questions on various topics related to lower-limb sports injuries. Maximal score was 100. We used social media to invite HCPs (5 groups: Physiotherapists, Chiropractors, Medical Doctors, Trainers, and Other therapists) and athletes of all levels (amateur, semi-pro, and pro) to participate. We drafted the questions according to conclusions from the latest systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

RESULTS

1526 participants completed the study. Final quiz scores ranged from zero (n = 28, 1.8%) to 100 (n = 2, 0.1%) and were distributed normally with a mean score of 45.4 ± 20.6. None of the 6 groups' means surpassed the set threshold of 60 points. Multiple linear regressions of covariates indicated that age, gender, engagement in physical activity, learning hours per week, reading scientific journals, reading popular magazines and blogs, trainers, and other therapists' groups explained 19% of the variances (-5.914<β < 15.082, 0.000<p < 0.038).

CONCLUSIONS

HCPs have insufficient up-to-date knowledge of lower limb sports injuries, and their knowledge is similar to that of athletes of all levels. HCPs probably do not possess the proper tools to assess scientific literature Academic and sports medicine societies should look into ways to improve the scientific knowledge integration of HCPs.

Pain is Not a "thing": How That Error Affects Language and Logic in Pain Medicine

Effectiveness in academic and clinical communication depends upon agreement on what words and concepts denote and on the consequent ability to argue logically and accurately. In the pain medicine literature there are many examples of imprecision and confusion in this respect, including misnomers and fallacies in reasoning. This article firstly critically examines some of these misnomers. Identified themes include pain being conceptualised as a "thing," conflation between nociception and pain, and confusion between stimulus and response and between the perspectives of the experiencer and the observer of "pain." Secondly, fallacies in reasoning are identified that contribute to imprecision and confusion. These include reification of pain, attributing to the brain functions that belong to whole organisms, and the illusory truth effect. Thirdly, these themes are identified also in constructs that are shown to be based more on speculation than on fact. Taken together, these observations reveal a need to review and, where necessary, modify terminology and concepts used in Pain Medicine. PERSPECTIVE: This article examines a number of words and constructs commonly found in the pain literature from the perspective of accuracy in terms of their consistency of usage, concordance with fact, degree of speculation and logical argument. A common major theme is the error of considering pain as a "thing" that has agentive properties. A need to clarify much of the language used in Pain Medicine is identified.

Attitudinal responses to current concepts and opinions from pain neuroscience education on social media

BACKGROUND

Pain neuroscience education (PNE) programs have become popular among clinicians and are widely promoted through social and mainstream media.

PURPOSE

To test the hypothesis that people with persistent pain are likely to express negative attitudes to PNE statements and compare their responses to other social media user groups.

METHODS

A total of 1319 respondents completed an online survey and were directed into four groups: persistent pain, healthcare professionals with persistent pain, pain-free healthcare professionals, and pain-free controls. The survey included ten statements of popular PNE concepts. Feedback was invited by offering seven attitudinal response categories (three positives, three negatives, and one neutral). A two-step hierarchical regression model was used to assess the likelihood of reporting negatively.

RESULTS

Compared to controls, respondents from the persistent pain group were more likely to report negatively towards all statements (OR 1.6-2.16), except for two statements (#3 and #5). Healthcare professionals were less likely to report negative attitudes for 4 out of 10 statement (OR 0.35-0.58). Health care professionals living with persistent responded to most statements like the pain-free controls (besides statement #2, OR 0.59).

CONCLUSION

People living with persistent pain are more likely to express negative attitudes to PNE statements on social media, unlike healthcare professionals who were less likely to express negativity. Healthcare professionals living with persistent pain responded to most PNE statements like the pain-free control group. The study's main weaknesses include the lack of psychometric information of the questionnaire used, selection bias, small samples of the healthcare professionals and the overrepresentation of young social media users.