Cargando…

Influencing Pain Inferences Using Random Numerical Anchoring: Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND: Numerical anchoring occurs when exposure to a numeric quantity influences a person’s subsequent judgment involving other quantities. This could be applicable to the evaluation of pain, where exposure to an unrelated number before the evaluation of pain could influence pain ratings. OBJEC...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lewinson, Rebecca Elizabeth, Katz, Joel D
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: JMIR Publications 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7091028/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32149719
http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/17533
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Numerical anchoring occurs when exposure to a numeric quantity influences a person’s subsequent judgment involving other quantities. This could be applicable to the evaluation of pain, where exposure to an unrelated number before the evaluation of pain could influence pain ratings. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine whether exposure to a random numeric anchor influences subsequent pain intensity ratings of a hypothetical patient. METHODS: In this study, 385 participants read a vignette describing a patient with chronic pain before being randomly assigned to one of four groups. Groups 1 and 2 spun an 11-wedge number wheel (0-10), which was, unbeknown to the participants, programmed to stop on a high number (8) or a low number (2), respectively. Group 3 spun a similar letter wheel (A-K), which was programmed to stop on either the letter C or I (control 1). Group 4 did not spin a wheel (control 2). Participants were then asked to rate the patient’s pain intensity using a 0 to 10 numeric rating scale. RESULTS: The high-number group rated the patient’s pain (median 8, IQR 2) significantly higher than the letter wheel control (median 7, IQR 2; P=.02) and the low-number group (median 6, IQR 2; P<.001). The low-number group rated the pain significantly lower than controls 1 and 2 (median 7, IQR 2; both P=.045). CONCLUSIONS: Pain ratings were influenced by prior exposure to a random number with no relevant information about the patient’s pain, indicating anchoring had occurred. However, contrary to the traditional definition of anchoring where anchoring occurs even when participants are unaware of the anchor’s influence, in this study, the anchoring effect was seen only in participants who believed that the anchor had influenced them. This suggests that anchoring effects could potentially occur among health care providers tasked with evaluating a patient’s pain and should be evaluated further.