4.7 Article

Investigation of the relationship between trauma and pain catastrophising: The roles of emotional processing and altered self-capacity

期刊

PSYCHIATRY RESEARCH
卷 208, 期 3, 页码 274-284

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2012.11.031

关键词

Trauma; Pain catastrophising; Emotional processing; Altered self-capacity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to investigate the interrelationship between posttraumatic stress, emotional processing difficulties, altered self-capacity, and pain catastrophising. A cross-sectional design gathered data from 249 participants completing an internet based survey. Respondents completed: The Posttraumatic Stress Diagnostic Scale; Emotional Processing Scale (EPS), the Inventory of Altered Self-Capacities (IASC), General Health Questionnaire-28 (GHQ-28) and the Pain Catastrophising Scale (PCS). Respondents were allocated to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), no-PTSD (depending on whether they met the screening criteria of PTSD using the Posttraumatic Stress Diagnostic Scale), and control group. Partial least squares (PIS) analysis confirmed the hypotheses: PTSD was significantly associated with pain catastrophising and poor psychological well-being. PTSD was significantly correlated with altered self-capacity which was in turn significantly associated with emotional processing difficulties. Emotional processing was significantly associated with pain catastrophising and poor psychological well-being whilst poor psychological well-being was associated with pain catastrophising. Emotional processing difficulties mediated the association between altered self-capacity and pain catastrophising and poor psychological well-being. To conclude, people's psychological well-being and perceptions of pain are closely related to PTSD severity from past traumas as well as self-capacities. Furthermore, the way in which they process their emotions also has an important role to play. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据