4.3 Article

Predicting posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms and pain intensity following severe injury: the role of catastrophizing

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOTRAUMATOLOGY
Volume 2, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3402/ejpt.v2i0.5652

Keywords

Posttraumatic stress; pain; catastrophizing; injury; prospective; comorbidity; path analysis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: A number of theories have proposed possible mechanisms that may explain the high rates of comorbidity between posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and persistent pain; however, there has been limited research investigating these factors. Objective: The present study sought to prospectively examine whether catastrophizing predicted the development of PTSD symptoms and persistent pain following physical injury. Design: Participants (N = 208) completed measures of PTSD symptomatology, pain intensity and catastrophizing during hospitalization following severe injury, and 3 and 12 months postinjury. Cross-lagged path analysis explored the longitudinal relationship between these variables. Results: Acute catastrophizing significantly predicted PTSD symptoms but not pain intensity 3 months postinjury. In turn, 3-month catastrophizing predicted pain intensity, but not PTSD symptoms 12 months postinjury. Indirect relations were also found between acute catastrophizing and 12-month PTSD symptoms and pain intensity. Relations were mediated via 3-month PTSD symptoms and 3-month catastrophizing, respectively. Acute symptoms did not predict 3-month catastrophizing and catastrophizing did not fully account for the relationship between PTSD symptoms and pain intensity. Conclusions: Findings partially support theories that propose a role for catastrophizing processes in understanding vulnerability to pain and posttrauma symptomatology and, thus, a possible mechanism for comorbidity between these conditions.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available