Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37711314›Full record

ReviewNeuroscience of consciousness2023

Lifeworlds in pain: a principled method for investigation and intervention.

Abby Tabor, Axel Constant

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Neuroscience of consciousness, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 50% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Abby TaborFaculty of Health and Applied Sciences, University of the West of England, Frenchay Campus, Coldharbour Ln, Stoke Gifford, Bristol BS16 1QY, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7970-5585
Axel ConstantDepartment of Engineering and Informatics, The University of Sussex, Chichester 1 Room 002, Falmer, Brighton BN1 9QJ, UK.
University of Sussex · GBUniversity of the West of England · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The experience of pain spans biological, psychological and sociocultural realms, both basic and complex, it is by turns necessary and devastating. Despite an extensive knowledge of the constituents of pain, the ability to translate this into effective intervention remains limited. It is suggested that current, multiscale, medical approaches, largely informed by the biopsychosocial (BPS) model, attempt to integrate knowledge but are undermined by an epistemological obligation, one that necessitates a prior isolation of the constituent parts. To overcome this impasse, we propose that an anthropological stance needs to be taken, underpinned by a Bayesian apparatus situated in computational psychiatry. Here, pain is presented within the context of lifeworlds, where attention is shifted away from the constituents of experience (e.g. nociception, reward processing and fear-avoidance), towards the dynamic affiliation that occurs between these processes over time. We argue that one can derive a principled method of investigation and intervention for pain from modelling approaches in computational psychiatry. We suggest that these modelling methods provide the necessary apparatus to navigate multiscale ontology and epistemology of pain. Finally, a unified approach to the experience of pain is presented, where the relational, inter-subjective phenomenology of pain is brought into contact with a principled method of translation; in so doing, revealing the conditions and possibilities of lifeworlds in pain.

Indexed as

anthropologybayesian inferenceembodimentpainpsyciatrytheories and models

Identifiers

PMID37711314
PMCPMC10499064
OpenAlexW4386710794

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.