↓ Skip to main content

Chronic Pain as a Hypothetical Construct: A Practical and Philosophical Consideration

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
19 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
56 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Chronic Pain as a Hypothetical Construct: A Practical and Philosophical Consideration
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, April 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00664
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel M Doleys

Abstract

Pain has been defined by the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) as "an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage, or described in terms of such damage." Chronic pain is usually described as pain that has persisted for 3-6 months and/or beyond the expected time of healing. The numerical pain rating (NPR) is the customary metric and often considered as a proxy for the subjective experience of chronic pain. This definition of pain (chronic) has been of significant heuristic value. However, the definition and the models it has spawned tend to encourage the interpretation of pain as a measurable entity and implies that the patient's experience of pain can be fully comprehended by someone other than the person in pain. Several major models of pain have been scrutinized and found to propagate the notion of pain as a 'thing' and fall prey to biomedical reductionism and Cartesian (mind-body) dualism. Furthermore, the NPR does not appear to capture the complexity of chronic pain and correlates poorly with other clinically meaningful outcomes. It, and other aspects of the current notion of chronic pain, appear to be an extension of our reliance on the philosophical principles of reductionism and materialism. These and other shortcomings identified in the IASP definition have resulted in an increased interest in a reexamination and possible updating of our view of pain (chronic) and its definition. The present paper describes an alternative view of pain, in particular chronic pain. It argues that chronic pain should be understood as a separate phenomenon from, rather than an extension of, acute pain and interpreted as a hypothetical construct (HC). HCs are contrasted to intervening variables (IV) and the use of HCs in science is illustrated. The acceptance of the principles of nonlinearity and emergence are seen as important characteristics. The practical implications and barriers of this philosophical shift for assessment, treatment, and education are explored. The patient's narrative is presented as a potential source of important phenomenological data relating to their 'experience' of pain. It is further proposed that educational and academic endeavors incorporate a discussion of the process of chronification and the role of complexity theory.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 56 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 13%
Student > Bachelor 7 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 13%
Researcher 4 7%
Other 10 18%
Unknown 8 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 20%
Psychology 8 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Neuroscience 2 4%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 8 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 August 2022.
All research outputs
#2,508,204
of 25,147,320 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#4,975
of 33,952 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,938
of 315,516 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#134
of 591 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,147,320 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 33,952 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 315,516 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 591 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.