Redefining hypnosis: A narrative review of theories to move towards an integrative model.

Hypnosis is an ancient mind-body intervention that has regained interest with the surge of research in the last decade documenting its clinical validity. Yet, theoretical controversies and misconceptions prevail among theorists, clinicians, and the general public, impeding the understanding, acceptance, replication, and use of hypnosis. Providing adequate information, which dispels misconceptions and promotes more balanced views, is warranted to facilitate the implementation and adoption of hypnosis in clinical and research settings. This review re-examines the conceptualisation of hypnosis throughout history and the theoretical controversies surrounding it while highlighting their meeting points and clinical implications. Despite dichotomies, a broad agreement appears across theoretical approaches regarding hypnotic analgesia effects, key components, and vocabulary. Further, theories highlight key factors of hypnotic responding. For instance, social theories highlight social and contextual variables, whereas state theories highlight biopsychosocial mechanisms and individual factors. Based on theories, the terms hypnotherapy or clinical hypnosis are recommended to refer to the therapeutic use of hypnosis in psychotherapeutic and medical contexts, respectively. This review concludes with a model that integrates various theories and evidence and presents hypnosis as a complex multifaceted intervention encompassing multiple procedures, phenomena, and influencing factors. This review intends to deepen our understanding of hypnosis, and promote its more rapid adoption and adequate implementation in research and clinical contexts, in addition to steering research towards evidence-based hypnotic practice. The review can have important research and clinical implications by contributing to advancing knowledge regarding hypnotic procedures, phenomena, and influencing factors.

Demystifying hypnosis: Unravelling facts, exploring the historical roots of myths, and discerning what is hypnosis.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Hypnosis, a mind-body treatment dating back to early human history, has regained attention in the last decade, with research suggesting its effectiveness for varied physiological and psychological ailments such as distress, pain, and psychosomatic disorders. However, myths and misconceptions have prevailed among the general public and clinicians, hindering the adoption and acceptance of hypnosis. It is important to distinguish myths from facts and discern what is hypnosis and what is not to enhance the understanding, acceptance, and adoption of hypnotic interventions. METHODS: This narrative review traces the history of myths surrounding hypnosis in contrast to the evolution of hypnosis as a treatment modality. In addition to comparing hypnosis to other interventions with similar procedures and features, the review unravels misconceptions that have impeded the adoption and acceptance of hypnosis in clinical and research settings and presents evidence to demystify this intervention. RESULTS: This review examines the roots of myths while presenting historical facts and evidence that support hypnosis as a treatment modality and alleviate misconceptions depicting it as mystical. Further, the review distinguishes hypnotic and non-hypnotic interventions with overlapping procedures and phenomenological features to enhance our understanding of hypnotic techniques and phenomena. CONCLUSION: This review enhances the understanding of hypnosis in historical, clinical, and research contexts by disproving related myths and misconceptions to promote the adoption of hypnosis in clinical and research contexts. Further, this review highlights knowledge gaps requiring further investigations to steer research toward an evidence-based practice of hypnosis and optimise multimodal therapies embedding hypnosis.

Clinical Hypnosis for Procedural Pain and Distress in Children: A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVE: Pain and distress are common in children undergoing medical procedures, exposing them to acute and chronic biopsychosocial impairments if inadequately treated. Clinical hypnosis has emerged as a potentially beneficial treatment for children's procedural pain and distress due to evidence of effectiveness and potential superiority to other psychological interventions. However, systematic reviews of clinical hypnosis for children's procedural pain and distress have been predominantly conducted in children undergoing oncology and needle procedures and are lacking in broader pediatric contexts. This scoping review maps the evidence of clinical hypnosis for children's procedural pain and distress across broad pediatric contexts while highlighting knowledge gaps and areas requiring further investigation. METHODS: Published databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science) and grey literature were searched in addition to hand-searching reference lists and key journals (up to May 2022). Two independent reviewers screened the titles and abstracts of search results followed by a full-text review against eligibility criteria. Articles were included if they involved a clinical hypnosis intervention comprising an induction followed by therapeutic suggestions for pain and distress in children undergoing medical procedures. This review followed the Arksey and O'Malley (2005) methodology and incorporated additional scoping review recommendations by the Joanna Briggs Institute and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. RESULTS: A total of 38 eligible studies involving 2,205 children were included after 4,775 articles were screened. Research on clinical hypnosis for children's procedural pain and distress was marked by a lack of fidelity measures and qualitative data as well as by inadequate intervention reporting and high attrition rates. Evidence regarding the safety of clinical hypnosis, pain unpleasantness outcomes, factors influencing outcomes, as well as barriers and facilitators to implementing hypnosis and study procedures was also lacking. Clinical hypnosis has potential benefits for children's procedural pain and distress based on evidence of superiority to control conditions and nonpharmacological interventions (e.g., distraction, acupressure) with moderate to large effect sizes as reported in 76% of studies. However, heterogeneous interventions, contexts, study designs, and populations were identified, and the certainty of the evidence was not evaluated. CONCLUSIONS: The review suggests potential benefits of clinical hypnosis for children's procedural pain and distress and thus provides a precursor for further systematic reviews and trials investigating the effectiveness of clinical hypnosis. The review also indicates the need to further explore the feasibility, acceptability, implementation, and safety of clinical hypnosis in children undergoing painful procedures. Based on the review, researchers implementing clinical hypnosis should adequately report interventions or use treatment manuals, follow recommended research guidelines, and assess the fidelity of intervention delivery to promote replicating and comparing interventions. The review also highlights common methodological shortcomings of published trials to avoid, such as the lack of implementation frameworks, small sample sizes, inadequate reporting of standard care or control conditions, and limited evidence on pain unpleasantness outcomes.

Hypnotherapy for procedural pain, itch, and state anxiety in children with acute burns: a feasibility and acceptability study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Burns and related procedures are painful and distressing for children, exposing them to acute and chronic sequelae that can negatively affect their physiological, psychological, and social functions. Non-pharmacological interventions such as distraction techniques are beneficial adjuncts to pharmacological agents for procedural pain, state anxiety, and itch in children with burns but have limitations (e.g. lack of research on burn-related itch, tailoring, and consensus on optimal treatment). Hypnotherapy is a non-pharmacological intervention that can be tailored for varied settings and populations with evidence of benefit for itch and superior effectiveness in comparison to other non-pharmacological interventions for children's procedural pain and state anxiety. Thus, children with burns can benefit from hypnotherapy as an adjunct to pharmacological agents. Yet, in paediatric burns, rigorous studies of effectiveness are limited and no studies have been identified that screen for hypnotic suggestibility, an important predictor of hypnotherapy outcomes. Considering potential barriers to the delivery of hypnotherapy in paediatric burns, the proposed study will examine the feasibility and acceptability of hypnotic suggestibility screening followed by hypnotherapy for procedural pain, state anxiety, and itch in children with acute burns. METHODS: An observational mixed-methods feasibility and acceptability study will be conducted over 15 weeks. Eligible children (N = 30) aged 4 to 16 years presenting to a paediatric burns outpatient centre in a metropolitan children's hospital in Australia with acute burns requiring dressing changes will be included. Eligible parents of children (N = up to 30) and clinicians who perform dressing changes (N = up to 20) will also be included. Child participants screened as having medium to high suggestibility as assessed by behavioural measures will receive hypnotherapy during dressing changes. A process evaluation will target feasibility and acceptability as primary outcomes and implementation (i.e. fidelity in delivery), reach, potential effectiveness, and adoption of evaluation procedures and intervention as secondary outcomes. DISCUSSION: Ethical approval was obtained from the Queensland Children's Hospital and Health Service ethics committee. Results will be published in peer-reviewed publications and conference proceedings. The findings will guide the design of future trials on the effectiveness of hypnotherapy and inform the development of child-centred hypnotic interventions in children with burns. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12620000988954.