4.4 Article

Personality and pain-related beliefs/coping strategies: A prospective study

Journal

CLINICAL JOURNAL OF PAIN
Volume 22, Issue 1, Pages 10-18

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.ajp.0000146218.31780.0b

Keywords

personality; neuroticism; pain-related beliefs; coping strategies

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: The ways in which people adjust to chronic pain has been partly attributed to pre-existing personality traits, but most evidence to date is from cross-sectional studies and mainly with arthritis groups. The present study examined the effects of 5 personality dimensions on measures of pain-related beliefs and catastrophizing assessed 9 months apart with a heterogeneous chronic pain sample. Method: One hundred forty-five patients with chronic pain presenting to a hospital pain center completed the NEO-Personality Inventory-Revised, 3 measures of pain related beliefs, the Catastrophizing scale of the Coping Strategy Questionnaire, and a 0 to 10 pain scale. Nine months from the initial assessment, patients completed the same measures, apart from the NEO-Personality Inventory-Revised. Results: Of the 5 personality dimensions studied, only neuroticism was related to the pain-related variables. Multiple hierarchical regression analyses revealed that neuroticism was a significant predictor of residualized change in pain self-efficacy beliefs and pain control appraisals over the time of the study, after controlling for initial values of both constructs. However, the effects were small, suggesting that other factors play a role in the determination of such beliefs, in addition to neuroticism. In contrast, neuroticism was not a significant predictor of residualized change in catastrophizing responses over the same period. The findings provide partial support for the hypothesis that pre-existing personality traits place some patients at risk for poor adjustment to chronic pain.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available