Cargando…

Interpretations of partners’ responses to pain behaviours: Perspectives of patients and partners

OBJECTIVES: Partner’s responses to pain behaviours play a pivotal role in the patient’s adjustment. This study aims to further our knowledge regarding patients’ and partners’ interpretation of partners’ responses to pain behaviours, and the possible discrepancies between patients’ and partners’ perc...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Akbari, Fatemeh, Mohammadi, Somayyeh, Dehghani, Mohsen, Sanderman, Robbert, Hagedoorn, Mariёt
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8246883/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33180996
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12490
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVES: Partner’s responses to pain behaviours play a pivotal role in the patient’s adjustment. This study aims to further our knowledge regarding patients’ and partners’ interpretation of partners’ responses to pain behaviours, and the possible discrepancies between patients’ and partners’ perceptions. Further, this study examines patients’ preferred responses to pain behaviours and possible discrepancies between received and preferred responses to pain behaviours. DESIGN: A qualitative research design based on a semi‐structured in‐depth interview. METHODS: Patients with chronic low back pain and their partners (n = 54) were recruited through purposive sampling and interviewed. Data were analysed based on an inductive analytic approach. RESULTS: Patients as well as partners indicated a number of different interpretations of partners’ responses to pain behaviours, including invalidation, relieving pain, validation, encouragement, caregiving exhaustion, and expressing resentment. Patients and partners revealed similarities in the interpretation of response categories that they associated with validation, invalidation, and expressing resentment. Discrepancies between patients and partners indicated that partners interpreted some responses as caused by caregiving exhaustion while patients did not. Patients perceived partner responses that included the active involvement of the partner (e.g., encouraging pain talk) more positively than responses that showed less active involvement of the partner. CONCLUSION: Patients and partners are likely to make various interpretations of a certain partner response to pain behaviours. Our findings underscore that patients’ interpretation about a certain behaviour might determine whether that behaviour is rated as desirable or aversive.