Patients’ Experiences of Consultations for Nonspecific Chronic Orofacial Pain: A Phenomenological Study

Aims: To use a qualitative research study to analyze the experi-ences of patients with nonspecific chronic orofacial pain with respect to consultations for their pain condition. Methods: Fourteen patients (11 women and 3 men; age range, 21 to 77 years) were strategically selected through a purposive sampling of the chronic orofacial pain patients referred to the Orofacial Pain Unit at the Faculty of Odontology, Malmö University, Malmö, Sweden. A qualitative research strategy based on phenomenologi-cal philosophy was chosen. Thematic in-depth interviews were conducted twice with each patient in order to expose the context of the orofacial pain condition. The interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. The text material was analyzed to deter-mine the attitude of the patients concerning their experience from the consultations. Results: All selected patients consented to par-ticipate. The patients expressed dissatisfaction with the consulta-tions and related many examples of poor communication and understanding. The patients also felt a great need to be taken care of and expressed contradictory statements concerning pain improvement. Conclusion: The results suggest that the communi-cation between the patients and the care providers was unsatisfac-tory and that the patients were limited in their ability to develop a personal coping strategy.

attitude; communication; consultation; orofacial pain; qualitative study

1. Foreman PA, Harold PL, Hay KD. An evaluation of the diagnosis, treatment, and outcome of patients with chronic orofacial pain. N Z Dent J 1994;90:44–48.

2. Israel HA, Ward JD, Horrell B, Scrivani SJ. Oral and maxillofacial surgery in patients with chronic orofacial pain. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2003;61:662–667.

3. Feinmann C. The long-term outcome of facial pain treatment. J Psychosom Res 1993;37:381–387.

4. Johansson EE, Hamberg K, Lindgren G, Westman G. “I’ve been crying my way”—Qualitative analysis of a group of female patients’ consultation experiences. Fam Pract 1996;13:498–503.

5. MacFarlane GJ, Thomas E, Papageorgiou AC, Schollum J, Croft PR, Silman AJ. The natural history of chronic pain in the community: A better prognosis than in the clinic? J Rheumatol 1996;23:1617–1620.

6. Ohrbach R, Dworkin SF. Five-year outcomes in TMD: Relationship of changes in pain to changes in physical and psychological variables. Pain 1998;74:315–326.

7. Wolf E, Nilner M, Petersson A, Petersson K. Long-term follow-up by means of a questionnaire of 109 patients with long-lasting orofacial pain. Swed Dent J 2002;26:125–134.

8. Turk DC, Dworkin RH, Allen RR, et al. Core outcome domains for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT rec-ommendations. Pain 2003;106:337–345.

9. Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Farrar JT, et al. Core outcome measures for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain 2005;113:9–19.

10. Werner A, Malterud K. It is hard work behaving as a credible patient: Encounters between women with chronic pain and their doctors. Soc Sci Med 2003;57:1409–1419.

11. May CR, Rose MJ, Johnstone FC. Dealing with doubt. How patients account for non-specific chronic low back pain. J Psychosom Res 2000;49:223–225.

12. Thomas SP. A phenomenological study of chronic pain. West J Nurs Res 2000;22:683–699.

13. Kelley P, Clifford P. Coping with chronic pain: Assessing narrative approaches. Soc Work 1997;42:266–277.

14. Riley JL III, Myers CD, Robinson ME, Bulcourf B, Gremillion HA. Factors predicting orofacial pain patient satisfaction with improvement. J Orofac Pain 2001; 15:29–35.

15. Britten N, Jones R, Murphy E, Stacy R. Qualitative research methods in general practice and primary care. Fam Pract 1995;12:104–114.

16. Husserl E. Ideas: General Introduction to Pure Phenomenology. London: Allen & Unwin, 1931.

17. Husserl E. Ideas Pertaining to a Pure Phenomenology and to a Phenomenological Philosophy, Second Book: Studies in the Phenomenology of Constitution. The Hague: Nijhoff, 1989.

18. Boyd CO. Phenomenology: The method. In: Munhall PL, Boyd CO (eds). Nursing Research: A Qualitative Perspective. New York: National League for Nursing Press, 1993:99–132.

19. Merleau-Ponty M. Phenomenology of Perception. London: Routledge, 1962.

20. Giorgi A. Sketch of a psychological phenomenological method. In: Giorgi A (ed). Phenomenology and Psychological Research. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press, 1985:8–22.

21. Dworkin SF, LeResche L. Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders: Review, criteria, examinations and specifications, critique. J Craniomand Disord 1992;6:301–355.

22. Moustakas C. Phenomenological Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1994.

23. Kvale S. Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1996.

24. Sharpe M, Mayou R, Seagroatt V, et al. Why do doctors find some patients difficult to help? Q J Med 1994;87:187–193.

25. Eccleston C, Williams AC, Rogers WS. Patients’ and professionals’ understandings of the causes of chronic pain: Blame, responsibility and identity protection. Soc Sci Med 1997;45:699–709.

26. McHugh G, Thoms G. Living with chronic pain: The patient’s perspective. Nurs Stand 2001;15:33–37.

27. Gullacksen AC, Lidbeck J. The life adjustment process in chronic pain: Psychosocial assessment and clinical implications. Pain Res Manag 2004;9:145–153.

28. Gamsa A. The role of psychological factors in chronic pain. I. A half century of study. Pain 1994;57:5–15.

29. Malterud K. Understanding women in pain. New pathways suggested by Umea researchers: Qualitative research and feminist perspectives. Scand J Prim Health Care 1998;16:195–198.