jagomart
digital resources
picture1_Hypnosis Pdf 86436 | Amp A0035644


 188x       Filetype PDF       File size 0.13 MB       Source: www.apa.org


File: Hypnosis Pdf 86436 | Amp A0035644
hypnotic approaches for chronic pain management clinical implications of recent research findings mark p jensen and david r patterson university of washington the empirical support for hypnosis for chronic pain ...

icon picture PDF Filetype PDF | Posted on 14 Sep 2022 | 3 years ago
Partial capture of text on file.
                       Hypnotic Approaches for Chronic Pain Management
                                                   Clinical Implications of Recent Research Findings
                                                                                   Mark P. Jensen and David R. Patterson
                                                                                              University of Washington
                    The empirical support for hypnosis for chronic pain man-                                         differences in expert opinion regarding which of these
                    agement has flourished over the past two decades. Clinical                                        elements represents the core component(s) of hypnosis,
                    trials show that hypnosis is effective for reducing chronic                                      making it difficult to determine if a specific treatment
         broadly.   pain, although outcomes vary between individuals. The                                            should be classified as hypnosis or not. Despite the lack of
                    findings from these clinical trials also show that hypnotic                                       consensus, we think it is important for clinicians and re-
     publishers.    treatments have a number of positive effects beyond pain                                         searchers to specify the definition they use in their work.
                    control. Neurophysiological studies reveal that hypnotic                                         Our preferred definition has been that proposed by Kihl-
     allieddisseminatedanalgesia has clear effects on brain and spinal-cord func-                                    strom (1985, p. 385): “a social interaction in which one
     its be         tioning that differ as a function of the specific hypnotic                                        person, designated the subject, responds to suggestions
     of  to         suggestions made, providing further evidence for the spe-                                        offered by another person, designated the hypnotist, for
     one not        cific effects of hypnosis. The research results have impor-                                       experiences involving alterations in perception, memory,
     or  is         tant implications for how clinicians can help their clients                                      and voluntary action.” (For further discussion regarding
         and        experience maximumbenefitsfromhypnosisandtreatments                                               different definitions of hypnosis that have been proposed,
                    that include hypnotic components.                                                                and the theoretical models underlying them, see Barnier &
         user                                                                                                        Nash, 2008.)
     Association    Keywords: hypnosis, chronic pain, hypnotic analgesia                                                     Hypnosis has been used to treat every type of pain
                                hronic pain remains a significant burden for both                                     condition imaginable over centuries and across cultures
         individual             individuals and society. Standard medical treat-                                     (Pintar & Lynn, 2008). What is new about hypnotic anal-
         the        Cmentforchronic pain is often inadequate (Turk,                                                  gesia is the compelling empirical evidence that has
     Psychologicalof                                                                                                 emerged in the last two decades regarding its efficacy and
         use        Wilson, & Cahana, 2011), and it is common for frustrated                                         mechanistic underpinnings. Much of the earlier research
                    patients to seek costly treatments from multiple health care                                     studying hypnotic analgesia focused on acute pain induced
     American       professionals without significant relief. Although a number                                       in laboratory settings or pain associated with medical pro-
     the personal   of psychological approaches to the treatment of chronic                                          cedures (Chaves, 1994; Ewin, 1986). This work continues,
     by  the        pain have demonstrated important success over the last few
         for        decades (see Jensen & Turk, 2014, this issue), there is a
                    need for additional and robust treatment options that could                                      Editor’s note.       This article is one of nine in the February–March 2014
         solely     benefit individuals with chronic pain.                                                            American Psychologist “Chronic Pain and Psychology” special issue.
     copyrighted            Growing awareness of the limitations of currently                                        Mark P. Jensen was the scholarly lead for the special issue.
     is             available pain treatments make training patients in self-
         intended   hypnosis an attractive component of pain treatment. For                                          Authors’ note. Mark P. Jensen and David R. Patterson, Department of
         is         example, there are increasing concerns about the overreli-                                       Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Washington.
     document       ance on analgesic medications, which can have negative                                                  Mark P. Jensen is the author of two books (2011, Oxford University
         article    side effects, have limited evidence for long-term efficacy,                                       Press) related to the topic of this article (Hypnosis for Chronic Pain
     This           and can result in significant problems associated with ad-                                        Management: Therapist Guide and Hypnosis for Chronic Pain Manage-
         This                                                                                                        ment: Workbook), and David R. Patterson is the author of one book (2010,
                    diction or diversion (i.e., nonprescription use) (Manchi-                                        American Psychological Association) related to the topic of this article
                    kanti & Singh, 2008; Maxwell, 2011). There is a corre-                                           (Clinical Hypnosis for Pain Control). They receive royalties for the sale
                    sponding need for effective pain treatments that have                                            of these books.
                    minimalnegative side effects; we are not aware of any pain                                              This research was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the
                                                                                                                     National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National
                    treatment option with fewer adverse effects than hypnosis                                        Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research Grant R01 HDD070973, and
                    (Jensen et al., 2006).                                                                           National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases
                            In spite of the promise of this treatment, however,                                      Grant R01 AR054115. The views presented here are not necessarily those
                    general acceptance of and research on hypnosis continues                                         of the National Institutes of Health.
                                                                                                                            We would like to express our appreciation to Lisa C. Murphy and
                    to be limited. This may be due in part to the lack of a                                          Jenny Nash for their valuable comments and feedback on an earlier
                    widely accepted definition of hypnosis (Barnier & Nash,                                           version of this article.
                    2008). Hypnosis incorporates a number of components,                                                    Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Mark
                    such as relaxation, focused attention, imagery, interper-                                        P. Jensen, Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Wash-
                                                                                                                     ington, Box 359612, Harborview Medical Center, 325 Ninth Avenue,
                    sonal processing, and suggestion. There continue to be                                           Seattle, WA 98104. E-mail: mjensen@uw.edu
                    February–March 2014 ● American Psychologist                                                                                                                                           167
                    ©2014 American Psychological Association 0003-066X/14/$12.00
                    Vol. 69, No. 2, 167–177     DOI: 10.1037/a0035644
                                                                              between patients who receive treatment and patients in a
                                                                              control condition (e.g., relaxation training, standard care,
                                                                              attention). However, it is unwise to draw conclusions re-
                                                                              garding the efficacy of any treatment based only on the
                                                                              statistical significance of averaged results. Statistically sig-
                                                                              nificant group differences can emerge even when there are
                                                                              very small (i.e., essentially meaningless) improvements in
                                                                              outcome in all or nearly all study participants. More im-
                                                                              portant, perhaps, nonsignificant results can emerge for
                                                                              treatments that have large and meaningful effects in many
                                                                              study participants if the study sample is too small or if the
                                                                              treatment is highly effective for a small subset of patients.
                                                                              In short, average group differences tell us little about the
                                                                              variability of treatment response among the individuals
      broadly.                                                                who receive the treatment.
                                                                                   Responder analyses have been recommended as an
    publishers.                                                               alternative strategy for determining the meaningfulness of
                                                                              treatment effects in pain clinical trials once a significant
    allieddisseminated                                                        treatment effect has been established (Dworkin et al.,
    itsbe                                                                     2008). In a responder analysis, the investigator identifies
    ofto     MarkP.                                                           the amount of improvement in the outcome variable needed
    onenot   Jensen                                                           to determine that an improvement is clinically meaningful
    oris                                                                      and then reports the proportion of “responders” in the
      and    and there have also been a number of recent innovative           different treatment conditions. For example, one early clin-
                                                                              ical trial of hypnosis for migraine headache (Anderson,
      user   applications of this modality to treat acute procedural pain     Basker, & Dalton, 1975) used “complete remission” as a
    Association(e.g., Patterson, Wiechman, Jensen, & Sharar, 2006). Other     criterion indicating a meaningful treatment response. More
             recent advances in understanding have come from imaging          recent studies use a 30% reduction in average daily pain
      individualstudies examining the brain functions associated with hyp-    intensity to represent a clinically meaningful improvement
      the    nosis and hypnotic analgesia (Barabasz & Barabasz, 2008;         in chronic pain conditions (Dworkin et al., 2005).
    PsychologicalofOakley, 2008; Oakley & Halligan, 2010; D. Spiegel,              We were able to identify four hypnosis studies that
      use    Bierre, & Rootenberg, 1989). In addition, there has been a       reported the results of responder analyses in addition to
             recent and dramatic increase in research on the efficacy of       group average results. In the first of these (Anderson et al.,
    American hypnosis for chronic pain conditions (Montgomery, Du-            1975), 47 patients with migraine headache were randomly
    thepersonalHamel, & Redd, 2000; Stoelb, Molton, Jensen, & Patter-         assigned to receive 12 months of either (a) six or more
    bythe    son, 2009; Tomé-Pires & Miró, 2012).                             sessions of hypnosis (with instructions to practice self-
      for          Clinical outcome studies on acute and chronic pain as      hypnosis daily) or (b) medication management (adminis-
             well as neurophysiological studies in the laboratory have        tration of the prophylactic drug Stemetil 5 mg four times
      solely demonstrated that hypnosis is effective over and above           per day for the first month and two times per day for the
    copyrightedplacebo treatments and that it has measurable effects on       remaining 11 months of the trial). A responder analysis
    is       activity in brain areas known to be involved in processing       indicated that “complete remission” of headaches during
      intendedpain. Equally important, recent clinical trials provide sig-    the last three months of treatment was achieved by 44% of
      is     nificant findings useful to the clinical application of hyp-       the participants in the hypnosis condition and 13% of the
    document nosis for the management of chronic pain. The ensuing            participants in the medication-management condition.
    Thisarticlereview and discussion highlight the clinical relevance of           In an early uncontrolled case series and two follow-up
      This   these findings to the use of hypnosis for chronic pain and        controlled trials, we examined response to 10 sessions of
             present the issues that we believe should be considered in       self-hypnosis training in a combined total of 82 individuals
             future clinical and theoretical work.                            with various diagnoses associated with physical disability
             Findings From Hypnosis Clinical Trials                           who also had chronic pain (Jensen, Barber, Romano, Han-
                                                                              ley, et al., 2009; Jensen, Barber, Romano, Molton, et al.,
             Two general findings from hypnosis trials have particular         2009; Jensen et al., 2005). A 30% or more reduction in
             clinical and theoretical relevance: (a) There is a high degree   average pain identified treatment responders, and analyses
             of variability in response to hypnotic analgesia, and (b) the    showed treatment-response rates varied from a low of 22%
             benefits of hypnosis treatment go beyond pain relief.             for individuals with spinal cord injury to 60% for persons
             Response to Hypnosis Treatment Is Highly                         with acquired amputation. Moreover, in one of these stud-
             Variable                                                         ies, a significant Time  Treatment Condition  Pain Type
                                                                              (neuropathic vs. nonneuropathic) interaction also emerged,
             In hypnosis/pain clinical trials, the standard primary anal-     explained by the fact that all of the participants who re-
             ysis compares group average differences in pain reduction        ported a clinically meaningful decrease in pain intensity
             168                                                                         February–March 2014 ● American Psychologist
                                                                               and the fact that the majority of patients show at least some
                                                                               benefits of hypnotic treatment (Montgomery et al., 2000)
                                                                               partially account for the fact that hypnotizability screenings
                                                                               are seldom used in clinical approaches to hypnotic pain
                                                                               control.
                                                                               Hypnosis Treatment Has Significant Benefits
                                                                               Beyond Pain Relief
                                                                               Clinicians in our hypnosis clinical trials anecdotally noted
                                                                               that the overwhelming majority of participants reported
                                                                               high levels of treatment satisfaction whether or not they
                                                                               experienced clinically meaningful pain relief. Moreover,
                                                                               we also found that a large proportion of patients—includ-
                                                                               ing many who did not report clinically meaningful de-
      broadly.                                                                 creases in average or characteristic pain with treatment—
                                                                               reported at follow-up that they continued to practice the
    publishers.                                                                self-hypnosis skills taught (Jensen, Barber, Romano, Han-
                                                                               ley, et al., 2009; Jensen, Barber, Romano, Molton, et al.,
    allieddisseminated                                                         2009). To help understand what appeared to be an anom-
    itsbe                                                                      alous finding, we contacted a cohort of patients who re-
    ofto      David R.                                                         ceived self-hypnosis training to determine their reasons for
    onenot    Patterson                                                        continued use of self-hypnosis skills despite an apparent
    oris                                                                       lack of benefit on average daily pain intensity. Consistent
      and                                                                      with what the study clinicians reported, almost all of the
                                                                               study participants reported high levels of treatment satis-
      user    had neuropathic pain, but none of the participants with          faction (Jensen et al., 2006). In addition, the great majority
    Associationnonneuropathic pain reported a meaningful pain reduction        of those who continued to practice self-hypnosis reported
              following hypnosis treatment (Jensen, Barber, Romano,            that they experienced temporary pain relief when they
      individualMolton, et al., 2009).                                         listened to audio recordings of the treatment sessions or
      the          When discussing variability in response to hypnosis         practiced self-hypnosis on their own without the record-
    Psychologicaloftreatment, it is important to consider the issue of hypnotiz-ings.
      use     ability. Hypnotizability reflects a person’s tendency (or, as          In short, we have found that hypnosis treatment has
              some investigators in the field view it, a trait, talent, or      two potential effects on chronic pain. First, as described
    American  ability) to respond positively to a variety of different sug-    above, the treatment can result in substantial reductions in
    thepersonalgestions following a hypnotic induction. A number of            average pain intensity that is maintained for up to 12
    bythe     standardized measures of hypnotizability exist (e.g., the        months in some—but not all—patients. We interpret this
      for     Hypnotic Induction Profile, H. Spiegel & Spiegel, 2004;           finding as support for the hypothesis that hypnosis treat-
              the Stanford Hypnotic Susceptibility Scale, Weitzenhoffer        ment can result in sustained changes in how the brain
      solely  & Hilgard, 1962; the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic             processes sensory information in subgroups of patients
    copyrightedSusceptibility, Shor & Ome, 1962; and the Stanford Hyp-         (larger or smaller subsets, depending on the specific pain
    is        notic Clinical Scale, Morgan & Hilgard, 1978–1979). Each         condition studied). However, for greater numbers of pa-
      intendedof these measures consists of a standardized hypnotic in-        tients, hypnosis treatment teaches self-management skills
      is      duction followed by a series of suggestions (for changes in      that patients can (and most do) continue to use regularly
    document  sensory experiences, amnesia, etc.), and the subject’s hyp-      and that can result in temporary pain relief.
    Thisarticlenotizability score is the simple sum of positive responses to        Wealsoaskedoursampletodescribe the positive and
      This    the suggestions.                                                 negative effects of hypnosis, and of the 40 different effects
                   One of the most consistent research findings is that         elicited, only three were negative (Jensen et al., 2006).
              hypnotizability scores are very stable, even across decades      Moreover, and to our surprise, only nine (23%) of the
              (Morgan, Johnson, & Hilgard, 1974). Another consistent           positive descriptions of hypnosis were pain-related. Non-
              finding is that general hypnotizability (i.e., response to        pain-related beneficial treatment effects included improved
              suggestions not involving analgesia) predicts response to        positive affect, relaxation, and increased energy. These
              hypnotic analgesia in the laboratory setting (Hilgard &          non-pain-related benefits were reported despite the fact that
              Hilgard, 1975). This has led to speculations that hypnotiz-      the hypnotic intervention was script driven and focused
              ability might explain the variability in response to hypnotic    exclusively on pain management.
              treatments of chronic pain. However, a growing body of                Theseresults are consistent with qualitative comments
              evidence indicates that general hypnotizability demon-           in the literature regarding the beneficial “side effects” of
              strates weak and inconsistent associations with hypnotic         hypnosis (Crawford et al., 1998; Stewart, 2005). They also
              treatment of chronic pain in the clinical setting (Patterson     reflect another important finding in the pain literature:
              &Jensen, 2003). The weak associations with clinical pain         People who report positive changes and satisfaction with
              February–March 2014 ● American Psychologist                                                                               169
               treatment do not always report substantial reductions in               nosis can also include suggestions for improving activity
               pain intensity (Turk, Okifuji, Sinclair, & Starz, 1998). As            levels, adaptive coping responses, adaptive pain-related
               we discuss in greater detail below, the use of hypnosis to             cognitions, and sleep quality (Jensen, 2011). Thus, clini-
               improve quality of life in people with chronic pain often              cians should take full advantage of all potential hypnotic
               involves focusing on outcome variables other than just pain            effects to help patients achieve a number of treatment
               relief.                                                                goals; suggestions should rarely, if ever, focus exclusively
                                                                                      on pain reduction.
               Clinical Implications of Findings From                                       Good practice involves giving patients
               Hypnosis Clinical Trials                                               withchronicpainrealistichope. Itisclear,based
               The key findings from the hypnosis clinical trials reviewed             on research findings, that not all patients with chronic pain
               above have three important implications for maximizing                 are going to experience pain relief with hypnosis. This
               the benefits of hypnotic pain treatment. Specifically, they              brings up the question of how expectations for treatment
               indicate that clinicians should (a) include suggestions for            can be enhanced, given that outcome expectancy is an
               both immediate and long-term pain relief, (b) include sug-             important factor that can enhance any clinical intervention.
       broadly.gestions for benefits in addition to pain reduction, and (c)            Because of our finding that the great majority of the par-
               use the knowledge about the multiple benefits of hypnosis               ticipants in our clinical trials report some benefits through
    publishers.to enhance treatment outcome expectancies.                             learning hypnosis, even when those benefits do not neces-
                    Immediate and long-term pain relief with                          sarily include pain relief, we now tell patients something
    allieddisseminatedself-hypnosis. Given the evidence that hypnotic an-             along the lines of the following to enhance outcome ex-
    itsbe      algesia treatment can result in both (a) long-term pain relief         pectancies without giving unrealistic expectations:
    of to      and (b) learning skills that produce immediate but shorter
    one                                                                               Manypatients find that they experience meaningful reductions in
    or not     lasting (i.e., a matter of hours) relief, clinicians providing         their pain that maintain for a year or more after treatment. Others
       is      hypnosis treatment should ensure that they take full advan-            report that they use the skills they learn to experience pain relief
       and     tage of both of these outcomes. Specifically, they should               for a few hours at a time when they use self-hypnosis for just a
       user    include hypnotic suggestions for “automatic” and long-                 minute or two. Even when the treatment does not result in
    Associationterm reductions in pain and related distress. They should              significant pain relief, almost everyone reports some benefit, such
               also provide suggestions, such as the following, that can              as improved sleep, an increased sense of overall calmness and
               facilitate the regular use and practice of self-hypnosis:              well-being, or reduced stress. I don’t know at this point which of
       individual                                                                     these benefits you would experience if you choose to learn self-
       the     And when you practice self-hypnosis, your mind can easily enter        hypnosis . . . want to find out?
    Psychologicalofthis state of comfort, and the comfort will stay with you for      The Effects of Hypnotic Analgesia on
       use     minutes and hours . . . the more you practice, the easier and more     Pain-Related Brain Activity
               automatic this will be . . . and the longer the beneficial effects will
    American   last.                                                                  To date, the primary imaging techniques used to study the
    thepersonal     Addressing issues beyond pain reduction.                          neurophysiological effects of hypnosis include positron
    by the     Given the established beneficial effects of hypnosis on                 emission tomography (PET; cortical metabolic activity),
       for     other outcome domains, hypnotic suggestions for address-               functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI; changes in
               ing additional pain-related issues should also be included in          blood flowinthebrainandspinalcord),andelectroenceph-
       solely  the hypnotic treatment (Jensen, 2011; Patterson, 2010). In             alography (EEG; cortical electrical activity). PET and
    copyrightedchronic pain, there are almost always associated symptoms              fMRI are most useful for identifying locations of brain
    is         that deserve attention. For example, between 50% and 88%               activity, and EEG is most useful for assessing brain states.
       intendedof patients with chronic pain report problems with sleep               Rather than repeating what has been reported in a number
       is      (Smith & Haythornthwaite, 2004). For such patients, hyp-               of reviews on cortical responses to hypnotic analgesia
    document   notic suggestions can be provided for an increased ability             (Barabasz & Barabasz, 2008; Oakley, 2008; Oakley &
    Thisarticleto fall asleep, to return to sleep if they awaken, and to feel         Halligan, 2010; D. Spiegel et al., 1989), we discuss four
       This    rested in the morning (Jensen, 2011).                                  key findings from this body of research that have important
                    Effective chronic pain treatments also often target               clinical implications for applying hypnosis to chronic pain
               increased activity and adaptive coping responses. Patients             management.
               whoare involved in physical therapy or who are maintain-               Hypnotic Analgesia Influences Pain
               ing a regular exercise program can be given suggestions                Processing at Multiple Sites
               that they will feel confident in their ability to engage in and
               maintain exercise. Those who experience fatigue might be               Oneofthemostimportant findings from recent neurophys-
               given suggestions such as being able to draw on an inner               iological studies of pain is that there is no single “pain
               strength and experience reserves of energy when needed                 center” in the brain that is responsible for the processing of
               and appropriate (Jensen, 2011).                                        pain. We now know that pain is associated with activity in
                    It is also important to remember that people with                 and interaction between a number of different areas of the
               chronic pain often suffer from clinically significant depres-           peripheral and central nervous systems, each of which
               sion and anxiety (Patterson, 2010), and mood states can be             contributes to the overall experience of pain (Apkarian,
               addressed by hypnosis (Alladin, 2010; Yapko, 2001). Hyp-               Hashmi, & Baliki, 2011). The cortical areas most often
               170                                                                                February–March 2014 ● American Psychologist
The words contained in this file might help you see if this file matches what you are looking for:

...Hypnotic approaches for chronic pain management clinical implications of recent research findings mark p jensen and david r patterson university washington the empirical support hypnosis man differences in expert opinion regarding which these agement has ourished over past two decades elements represents core component s trials show that is effective reducing making it difcult to determine if a specic treatment broadly although outcomes vary between individuals should be classied as or not despite lack ndings from also consensus we think important clinicians re publishers treatments have number positive effects beyond searchers specify denition they use their work control neurophysiological studies reveal our preferred been proposed by kihl allieddisseminatedanalgesia clear on brain spinal cord func strom social interaction one its tioning differ function person designated subject responds suggestions made providing further evidence spe offered another hypnotist cic results impor exper...

no reviews yet
Please Login to review.