Observational studyThe journal of pain2025
Clinician and researcher responses to the term pain catastrophizing and whether new terminology is needed: Content analysis of international, cross-sectional, qualitative survey data.
Observational study in The journal of pain, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pain-related disability in functional neurological disorder (FND): the role of pain intensity and psychological factors.Journal of neurology · 2026Article
- Longitudinal Associations Among Pain Catastrophizing, Pain Interference, and Pain Medication Use in Adolescents With Chronic Pain.European journal of pain (London, England) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
23 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Pain catastrophizing is understood as a negative cognitive and emotional response to pain. Researchers, clinicians, advocates, and patients have reported stigmatizing effects of the term on patients when used clinically and in the media. This report describes the results of an international, observational, cross-sectional study investigation of clinician and researcher (professionals) perspectives on the term pain catastrophizing and whether new terminology is needed or desired. Open-ended electronic surveys were distributed to researchers and clinicians by collaborators, stakeholders, and through social media. Professionals reported on their familiarity with the term, its meaning and impacts, and their use of the term with patients. 1397 surveys from professionals in 46 countries (48.5% from the U.S.) were received. The sample was almost two-thirds female (61.3%), with a mean age of 56.67 (SD=4.04) years, and comprised of 78.6% clinicians (63.6%, pain specialists; n=698) and 20.3% researchers. The majority were familiar with the term (82.2%; n=1148). Among the 1098 clinicians, 33.6% had used the term in communication with patients. A content analysis of professionals' responses to open-ended questions is presented. Coded responses were synthesized into five content categories or themes: (1) pain catastrophizing is an exaggerated response to pain; (2) pain catastrophizing is an unhelpful response to pain; (3) the term pain catastrophizing is stigmatizing; (4) the term pain catastrophizing is clinically useful; (5) patients' perception of the term varies. Results highlight the continual controversy surrounding the term pain catastrophizing and the need for additional research and education to incorporate patient-centered approaches into clinical and public communications. Perspective: We present a content analysis of international clinician and researcher perspectives on the term pain catastrophizing. This investigation provides the largest depiction to date of the controversy surrounding pain catastrophizing and may guide future efforts to decrease stigma in patients with chronic pain and improve patient-clinician communication.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.