Ghent University Academic Bibliography

Advanced

The effect of validating and invalidating communication on satisfaction, pain and affect in nurses suffering from low back pain during a semi-structured interview

Karoline Vangronsveld UGent and SJ Linton (2012) EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PAIN. 16(2). p.239-246
abstract
When physicians interview patients with ambiguous or nonspecific symptoms, they often try to reassure them with the purpose of explaining that no dangerous illness or disease is causing the symptoms. Unfortunately the evidence suggests that patients with benign (back) pain instead feel misunderstood, frustrated and unsatisfied with the consultation. Validation is a communication method that focuses on understanding and empathy as a platform for problem solving and it may be applicable for interviews in medical settings. The aim of this study was to examine the effects of validation on patient satisfaction, pain and affect. To this end 28 nurses with (re) current back pain were recruited and randomly assigned to be interviewed in a validating or invalidating condition. Patient satisfaction, affect, pain, disability, pain catastrophizing, and fear of movement were assessed immediately after the interview. The results show that the participants in the validated group were more satisfied with the interview than participants in the invalidating condition. Moreover, they showed a significant decrease on all measures of negative affect as well as for pain. For example, there was a significant between group difference in frustration where frustration decreased in the validation group, while it increased in the invalidation condition. A validating communication style seems to be beneficial for enhancing patient satisfaction, as well as diminishing negative affect and pain intensity ratings. Our results suggest that validation might be a viable technique to use in clinical examinations of patients suffering pain.
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
year
type
journalArticle (original)
publication status
published
subject
keyword
SWEDISH VERSION, CATASTROPHIZING SCALE, TAMPA SCALE, FEAR, QUESTIONNAIRE, KINESIOPHOBIA, CONSULTATION, RELIABILITY, REASSURANCE, VALIDITY
journal title
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PAIN
Eur. J. Pain
volume
16
issue
2
pages
239 - 246
Web of Science type
Article
Web of Science id
000306900900009
JCR category
ANESTHESIOLOGY
JCR impact factor
3.067 (2012)
JCR rank
7/29 (2012)
JCR quartile
1 (2012)
ISSN
1090-3801
DOI
10.1016/j.ejpain.2011.07.009
language
English
UGent publication?
yes
classification
A1
copyright statement
I have transferred the copyright for this publication to the publisher
id
3005849
handle
http://hdl.handle.net/1854/LU-3005849
date created
2012-10-03 17:35:32
date last changed
2012-10-08 15:34:57
@article{3005849,
  abstract     = {When physicians interview patients with ambiguous or nonspecific symptoms, they often try to reassure them with the purpose of explaining that no dangerous illness or disease is causing the symptoms. Unfortunately the evidence suggests that patients with benign (back) pain instead feel misunderstood, frustrated and unsatisfied with the consultation. Validation is a communication method that focuses on understanding and empathy as a platform for problem solving and it may be applicable for interviews in medical settings. The aim of this study was to examine the effects of validation on patient satisfaction, pain and affect. To this end 28 nurses with (re) current back pain were recruited and randomly assigned to be interviewed in a validating or invalidating condition. Patient satisfaction, affect, pain, disability, pain catastrophizing, and fear of movement were assessed immediately after the interview. The results show that the participants in the validated group were more satisfied with the interview than participants in the invalidating condition. Moreover, they showed a significant decrease on all measures of negative affect as well as for pain. For example, there was a significant between group difference in frustration where frustration decreased in the validation group, while it increased in the invalidation condition. A validating communication style seems to be beneficial for enhancing patient satisfaction, as well as diminishing negative affect and pain intensity ratings. Our results suggest that validation might be a viable technique to use in clinical examinations of patients suffering pain.},
  author       = {Vangronsveld, Karoline and Linton, SJ},
  issn         = {1090-3801},
  journal      = {EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PAIN},
  keyword      = {SWEDISH VERSION,CATASTROPHIZING SCALE,TAMPA SCALE,FEAR,QUESTIONNAIRE,KINESIOPHOBIA,CONSULTATION,RELIABILITY,REASSURANCE,VALIDITY},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {2},
  pages        = {239--246},
  title        = {The effect of validating and invalidating communication on satisfaction, pain and affect in nurses suffering from low back pain during a semi-structured interview},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpain.2011.07.009},
  volume       = {16},
  year         = {2012},
}

Chicago
Vangronsveld, Karoline, and SJ Linton. 2012. “The Effect of Validating and Invalidating Communication on Satisfaction, Pain and Affect in Nurses Suffering from Low Back Pain During a Semi-structured Interview.” European Journal of Pain 16 (2): 239–246.
APA
Vangronsveld, K., & Linton, S. (2012). The effect of validating and invalidating communication on satisfaction, pain and affect in nurses suffering from low back pain during a semi-structured interview. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PAIN, 16(2), 239–246.
Vancouver
1.
Vangronsveld K, Linton S. The effect of validating and invalidating communication on satisfaction, pain and affect in nurses suffering from low back pain during a semi-structured interview. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PAIN. 2012;16(2):239–46.
MLA
Vangronsveld, Karoline, and SJ Linton. “The Effect of Validating and Invalidating Communication on Satisfaction, Pain and Affect in Nurses Suffering from Low Back Pain During a Semi-structured Interview.” EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PAIN 16.2 (2012): 239–246. Print.