An Introduction To Treating Persistent Pain

Course Overview

Despite the importance of validation as a means of explicitly communicating that we understand the legitimacy of other people’s thoughts and concerns, the evidence points towards a worrying lack of validation in healthcare consultations (Edmond and Keefe, 2015).

This poses an interesting dilemma when we consider the contrast between how we might naturally display empathy and validation when communicating with a friend or family member who is in distress, and how we might withhold this same innate human response when communicating with people in pain.

When listening to a friend’s distress it would be quite typical for many of us to say, “I’m so sorry to hear that. That sounds really hard. No wonder you’re upset. How have you been coping?”

Yet, despite this natural capacity to display empathy and validation, many clinicians may either avoid or forget to validate the experience by moving quickly onto the next question in their subjective examination format, or possibly even respond to the patient’s distress by asking them to rate their experience on a numerical scale between 0-10 (Padfield et al, 2010).     

 Edmond and Keefe (2015) suggest that many healthcare professionals are hesitant to display their empathy and validation skills because of a general concern that this will help reinforce the patient’s unhelpful pain behaviors. However, the evidence does not support this belief with indications that validation results in a reduction in pain, a decrease in worry, and fewer pain behaviors (Edlund et al, 2017, Linton et al, 2012). Furthermore, as Mantel’s quotation alludes to, empathetic validation can also lead to an increase in trust and a stronger therapeutic alliance.