Journal of Pain & Relief
Open Access

Psychological pain; Emotional pain; Psychiatric patients; Pain measurement; Self-report; Clinician-administered scales; Mental health assessment; Depression; Anxiety

Introduction

Psychological pain, or emotional distress, is an unpleasant experience that arises from emotional suffering, loss, or trauma. It is considered a key feature of various psychiatric conditions, including depression, anxiety disorders, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), and borderline personality disorder. Unlike physical pain, which can often be traced to a specific bodily injury or disorder, psychological pain is more abstract, and its measurement lacks standard, universally accepted criteria. Assessing psychological pain in psychiatric patients is crucial for understanding their emotional states, improving diagnostic accuracy, and tailoring effective treatment plans. However, the absence of clear biomarkers or objective measures complicates the process. This article reviews the current methods for assessing psychological pain in psychiatric patients, identifies the challenges faced by clinicians in measuring this type of pain, and explores the potential for improving assessment techniques [1,2].

Description

Self-report measures

Self-report tools are among the most commonly used methods for assessing psychological pain. These instruments typically rely on patients' ability to express their emotional states through questionnaires or interviews. Common self-report measures include:

The psychological pain assessment scale (PPAS): This scale is designed to assess the intensity and duration of psychological pain, capturing emotional distress across various psychiatric conditions.

The inventory of depression and anxiety symptoms (IDAS): While primarily used for assessing depressive and anxiety symptoms, the IDAS also includes items that relate directly to emotional pain and suffering [3].

The pain sensitivity questionnaire (PSQ): Although originally developed for physical pain, this tool is used in some settings to explore the emotional aspects of pain in psychiatric patients.

Self-report measures are valuable because they provide direct insight into the patient's perception of their emotional pain, but they are subject to biases such as social desirability or lack of self-awareness, which can impact their accuracy.

Clinician-administered scales

Clinician-administered tools involve direct evaluation by a trained mental health professional [4,5]. These scales typically require the clinician to assess a patient’s emotional pain based on observed behaviors and symptoms. Examples of clinician-administered tools include:

The beck depression inventory (BDI): Though primarily used to diagnose depression, the BDI assesses emotional pain as part of its broader evaluation of depressive symptoms.

The hamilton depression rating scale (HDRS): This scale evaluates a wide range of depressive symptoms, including emotional suffering and psychological pain.

The clinical global impressions (CGI): Used to assess the severity of psychiatric conditions, the CGI can also provide insights into emotional distress experienced by psychiatric patients.

Clinician-administered scales allow for a more standardized assessment but can be limited by the clinician's interpretative skills and the subjective nature of emotional pain [6].

Psychophysiological measures

In recent years, there has been growing interest in integrating psychophysiological measures, such as heart rate variability, galvanic skin response, and brain imaging, to assess psychological pain. These techniques aim to capture the physiological responses associated with emotional distress, offering an objective complement to subjective reports. While still in experimental stages, such methods hold promise for providing more comprehensive insights into psychological pain.

Challenges in measuring psychological pain

One of the biggest challenges in measuring psychological pain is its inherent subjectivity. Unlike physical pain, which can be objectively quantified using scales like the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), psychological pain varies widely from one individual to another and is influenced by personal, cultural, and contextual factors [7,8]. Additionally, comorbid psychiatric disorders such as depression and anxiety often complicate the measurement, as these conditions may share overlapping symptoms with psychological pain, making it difficult to isolate and measure.

Discussion

Psychological pain is an essential factor in the assessment and treatment of psychiatric patients, particularly those with mood disorders, trauma-related disorders, and personality disorders. However, due to the subjective nature of this form of pain, assessing its intensity and impact remains challenging. The self-report measures provide valuable patient-centered data but are subject to limitations related to patient insight and emotional regulation. Clinician-administered scales are useful for assessing psychological pain in a standardized manner but may be influenced by the clinician's judgment and interpretation [9].

Integrating psychophysiological measures could potentially improve the accuracy of psychological pain assessment, offering a more objective way to measure emotional distress. Brain imaging techniques, such as functional MRI (fMRI) and electroencephalography (EEG), have shown promise in identifying neural correlates of psychological pain, which may eventually lead to more precise diagnostic tools. However, these technologies are not yet widespread in clinical practice, and their cost and complexity limit their use.

The role of psychological pain in the development and exacerbation of mental health conditions cannot be understated. Untreated or poorly managed emotional pain can lead to worsening symptoms, higher rates of suicidality, and chronic psychiatric illness. Therefore, accurate assessment is key to guiding effective interventions. Future research should aim to refine existing tools, develop new approaches, and explore the neurobiological underpinnings of psychological pain to improve clinical outcomes for psychiatric patients [10].

Conclusion

Measuring psychological pain in psychiatric patients remains a significant challenge due to the complexity and subjectivity of emotional distress. While self-report measures, clinician-administered scales, and emerging psychophysiological tools provide valuable insights, there is still no universally accepted method for quantifying psychological pain. Clinicians must rely on a combination of these tools to assess psychological pain effectively, but further research is needed to develop more reliable and objective methods. Understanding and addressing psychological pain is crucial for improving the care and outcomes of psychiatric patients, particularly those with mood and trauma-related disorders. Accurate measurement and effective treatment can help mitigate the harmful effects of emotional suffering and improve patients’ quality of life.

1. Jordan JM, Helmick CG, Renner JB, Luta G, Dragomir AD, et al. (2009) Prevalence of hip symptoms and radiographic and symptomatic hip osteoarthritis in African Americans and Caucasians: the Johnston County Osteoarthritis Project. J Rheumatol 36: 809-815.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

2. Swain S, Sarmanova A, Mallen C, Kuo CF, Coupland C, et al. (2020) Trends in incidence and prevalence of osteoarthritis in the United Kingdom: findings from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). Osteoarthritis Cartilage 28: 792-801.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

3. Murphy LB, Helmick CG, Schwartz TA, Renner JB, Tudor G, et al. (2010) One in four people may develop symptomatic hip osteoarthritis in his or her lifetime. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 18:1372-1379.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

4. Dabare C, Le Marshall K, Leung A, Page CJ, Choong PF, et al. (2017) Differences in presentation, progression and rates of arthroplasty between hip and knee osteoarthritis: Observations from an osteoarthritis cohort study-a clear role for conservative management. Int J Rheum Dis 20: 1350-1360.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

5. Matharu GS, Culliford DJ, Blom AW, Judge A (2022) Projections for primary hip and knee replacement surgery up to the year 2060: an analysis based on data from The National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 104: 443-448.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

6. Gustafsson K, Kvist J, Zhou C, Eriksson M, Rolfson O (2022) Progression to arthroplasty surgery among patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis : a study from the Swedish BOA Register. Bone Joint J 104: 792-800.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

7. Svege I, Nordsletten L, Fernandes L, Risberg MA (2015) Exercise therapy may postpone total hip replacement surgery in patients with hip osteoarthritis: a long-term follow-up of a randomised trial. Ann Rheum Dis 74: 164-169.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

8. Gwynne-Jones JH, Wilson RA, Wong JMY, Abbott JH, Gwynne-Jones DP (2020) The Outcomes of Nonoperative Management of Patients With Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis Triaged to a Physiotherapy-Led Clinic at Minimum 5-Year Follow-Up and Factors Associated With Progression to Surgery. J Arthroplasty 35: 1497-1503.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

9. Drexler M, Segal G, Lahad A, Haim A, Rath U, et al. (2013) A non-invasive foot-worn biomechanical device for patients with hip osteoarthritis. Surg: Curr Res.

Google Scholar

10. Solomonow-Avnon D, Herman A, Levin D, Rozen N, Peled E, et al. (2017) Positive outcomes following gait therapy intervention for hip osteoarthritis: A longitudinal study. J Orthop Res 35: 2222-2232.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref