# Clinician and researcher responses to the term pain catastrophizing and whether new terminology is needed: Content analysis of international, cross-sectional, qualitative survey data

**Authors:** Hannah Boyd, Dokyoung S. You, Angela Nguyen, Laura Connoy, Devdeep Ahuja, Christine Chambers, Penny Cowan, Rachel Cox, Geert Crombez, Amanda B. Feinstein, Anne Fuqua, Gadi Gilam, Sean C. Mackey, Lance M. McCracken, Lynn M. Martire, Kathleen Sluka, Peter O’Sullivan, Judith A. Turner, Christin Veasley, Maisa S. Ziadni, Claire E. Ashton-James, Fiona Webster, Beth D. Darnall

PMC · DOI: 10.1016/j.jpain.2025.105330 · The journal of pain · 2025-04-01

## TL;DR

This study explores how clinicians and researchers view the term 'pain catastrophizing' and whether it should be replaced due to potential stigma.

## Contribution

The study provides the largest international analysis of professional perspectives on the term 'pain catastrophizing' and its clinical implications.

## Key findings

- Most professionals are familiar with the term 'pain catastrophizing', but some find it stigmatizing.
- Over a third of clinicians have used the term when communicating with patients.
- Responses highlight both clinical usefulness and negative perceptions of the term.

## 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.

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.

## Full-text entities

- **Diseases:** Pain catastrophizing (MESH:D010146), chronic pain (MESH:D059350)
- **Species:** Homo sapiens (human, species) [taxon 9606]

## Full text

_Full body text omitted from this summary view._ Fetch the complete paper as Markdown: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC11929406/full.md

## Figures

1 figure with captions in the complete paper: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC11929406/full.md

## References

59 references — full list in the complete paper: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC11929406/full.md

---
Source: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC11929406