Pain patients’ experiences of validation and invalidation from physicians before and after multimodal pain rehabilitation: Associations with pain, negative affectivity, and treatment outcome

Abstract

Abstract Background and aims Validating and invalidating responses play an important role in communication with pain patients, for example regarding emotion regulation and adherence to treatment. However, it is unclear how patients’ perceptions of validation and invalidation relate to patient characteristics and treatment outcome. The aim of this study was to investigate the occurrence of subgroups based on pain patients’ perceptions of validation and invalidation from their physicians. The stability of these perceptions and differences between subgroups regarding pain, pain interference, negative affectivity and treatment outcome were also explored. Methods A total of 108 pain patients answered questionnaires regarding perceived validation and invalidation, pain severity, pain interference, and negative affectivity before and after pain rehabilitation treatment. Two cluster analyses using perceived validation and invalidation were performed, one on pre-scores and one on post-scores. The stability of patient perceptions from pre- to post-treatment was investigated, and clusters were compared on pain severity, pain interference, and negative affectivity. Finally, the connection between perceived validation and invalidation and treatment outcome was explored. Results Three clusters emerged both before and after treatment: (1) low validation and heightened invalidation, (2) moderate validation and invalidation, and (3) high validation and low invalidation. Perceptions of validation and invalidation were generally stable over time, although there were individuals whose perceptions changed. When compared to the other two clusters, the low validation/heightened invalidation cluster displayed significantly higher levels of pain interference and negative affectivity post-treatment but not pre-treatment. The whole sample significantly improved on pain interference and depression, but treatment outcome was independent of cluster. Unexpectedly, differences between clusters on pain interference and negative affectivity were only found post-treatment. This appeared to be due to the pre- and post-heightened invalidation clusters not containing the same individuals. Therefore, additional analyses were conducted to investigate the individuals who changed clusters. Results showed that patients scoring high on negative affectivity ended up in the heightened invalidation cluster post-treatment. Conclusions Taken together, most patients felt understood when communicating with their rehabilitation physician. However, a smaller group of patients experienced the opposite: low levels of validation and heightened levels of invalidation. This group stood out as more problematic, reporting greater pain interference and negative affectivity when compared to the other groups after treatment. Patient perceptions were typically stable over time, but some individuals changed cluster, and these movements seemed to be related to negative affectivity and pain interference. These results do not support a connection between perceived validation and invalidation from physicians (meeting the patients pre- and post-treatment) and treatment outcome. Overall, our results suggest that there is a connection between negative affectivity and pain interference in the patients, and perceived validation and invalidation from the physicians. Implications In clinical practice, it is important to pay attention to comorbid psychological problems and level of pain interference, since these factors may negatively influence effective communication. A focus on decreasing invalidating responses and/or increasing validating responses might be particularly important for patients with high levels of psychological problems and pain interference.