IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v45y1997i5p699-709.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patients' and professionals' understandings of the causes of chronic pain: Blame, responsibility and identity protection

Author

Listed:
  • Eccleston, Chris
  • De C. Williams, Amanda C.
  • Rogers, Wendy Stainton

Abstract

A social constructionist analysis of how sense is made of the causes of chronic pain is reported. It is recognised that there is a multiplicity of stories available in any culture from which understanding can be reached. Q-factor analysis is used within a critical framework as Q-methodology. Sixty chronic pain patients and pain professionals completed the sorting procedure. Four factors were derived that account for the causes of chronic pain. These are reported as the patients' account, the professionals' account, the scientists' account and the alternative practitioner's account. Common to all four accounts are the themes of responsibility, blame and the need to protect identity. It is argued that in all accounts responsibility is repositioned away from the sufferer or the healer. In all of the accounts blame is resisted or deflected away from individual ownership. Finally, it is argued that when pain is no longer useful as a symptom, identity is challenged, weakened and at risk for both chronic pain patients and pain professionals. Implications of this study for chronic pain research and treatment are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Eccleston, Chris & De C. Williams, Amanda C. & Rogers, Wendy Stainton, 1997. "Patients' and professionals' understandings of the causes of chronic pain: Blame, responsibility and identity protection," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 45(5), pages 699-709, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:45:y:1997:i:5:p:699-709
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(96)00404-2
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. van Exel, Job & Baker, Rachel & Mason, Helen & Donaldson, Cam & Brouwer, Werner, 2015. "Public views on principles for health care priority setting: Findings of a European cross-country study using Q methodology," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 128-137.
    2. Bryant, Louise D. & Green, Josephine M. & Hewison, Jenny, 2006. "Understandings of Down's syndrome: A Q methodological investigation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(5), pages 1188-1200, September.
    3. Ida Björkman & Magnus Simrén & Gisela Ringström & Eva Jakobsson Ung, 2016. "Patients’ experiences of healthcare encounters in severe irritable bowel syndrome: an analysis based on narrative and feminist theory," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(19-20), pages 2967-2978, October.
    4. Rosa Esteve & Alicia Eva López-Martínez & Gema Teresa Ruíz-Párraga & Elena Rocío Serrano-Ibáñez & Carmen Ramírez-Maestre, 2020. "Pain Acceptance and Pain-Related Disability Predict Healthcare Utilization and Medication Intake in Patients with Non-Specific Chronic Spinal Pain," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(15), pages 1-12, July.
    5. Baker, Rachel Mairi, 2006. "Economic rationality and health and lifestyle choices for people with diabetes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(9), pages 2341-2353, November.
    6. Sim, Julius & Madden, Sue, 2008. "Illness experience in fibromyalgia syndrome: A metasynthesis of qualitative studies," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 57-67, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    pain identity blame Q-methodology;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:45:y:1997:i:5:p:699-709. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.