Community Perspectives on Patient Credibility and Provider Burden in the Treatment of Chronic Pain.

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: This study examined factors influencing lay perceptions of a provider's clinical burden in providing care to a person with chronic pain. DESIGN: In a between-subjects design that varied three levels of pain severity (4, 6, or 8 out of 10) with two levels of medical evidence (low/high), participants rated the credibility of pain reported by a hypothetical patient and the psychosocial factors expected to mediate the effects of evidence and severity on a provider's burden of care. SETTING: A randomized vignette study in which community participants were recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk. SUBJECTS: 337 community participants. METHODS: Using a Qualtrics platform, participants read one of six vignettes describing a hypothetical patient with varying levels of medical evidence and pain severity and then rated perceived pain severity, pain credibility, psychosocial variables, and burden. RESULTS: Serial mediation models accounted for all effects of medical evidence and pain severity on burden. Low medical evidence was associated with increased burden, as mediated through lower pain credibility and greater concerns about patient depression, opioid abuse, and learning pain management. Higher levels of reported pain severity were associated with increased burden, as mediated through greater pain discounting and concerns about opioid abuse. CONCLUSIONS: The lay public is skeptical of chronic pain that is not supported by medical evidence or is reported at high levels of severity, raising concerns about psychosocial complications and drug seeking and expectations of higher burden of care. Such negative stereotypes can pose obstacles to people seeking necessary care if they or others develop a chronic pain condition.