4.4 Article

The pain self-efficacy questionnaire: Taking pain into account

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PAIN
卷 11, 期 2, 页码 153-163

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejpain.2005.12.008

关键词

chronic pain; self-efficacy; disability; coping; pain management

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Self-efficacy beliefs in people with chronic pain have been assessed either by reference to confidence in ability to perform specific tasks or to confidence in performing more generalised constructs like coping with pain. Both approaches reflect aspects of the original conceptualisations of self-efficacy and both have proved useful, but it is noteworthy that confidence in performing activities in the context of pain is rarely addressed. An important element in the original formulations of self-efficacy referred to persistence in the face of obstacles and aversive experiences. In this context, self-efficacy beliefs for people experiencing chronic pain might be expected to incorporate not just the expectation that a person could perform a particular behaviour or task, but also their confidence in being able to do it despite their pain. This aspect of the self-efficacy construct has been included in a measure for people with chronic pain, the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (PSEQ). The accumulated evidence from a number of published studies and a confirmatory analysis with a large cohort of heterogeneous chronic pain patients attending a pain management program provide support for the PSEQ's original psychometric properties developed with a sample of chronic low back pain patients. The importance of taking the context of pain into account in the assessment of self-efficacy beliefs in pain populations and the ways in which this measure can be used to improve the assessment of people experiencing chronic pain, before and after treatment, are examined. (C) 2005 European Federation of Chapters of the International Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Elsevier 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

4.4
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