4.4 Article

Influences of gender role and anxiety on sex differences in temporal summation of pain

期刊

JOURNAL OF PAIN
卷 5, 期 2, 页码 77-82

出版社

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpain.2003.11.004

关键词

temporal summation; gender role; sex differences; experimental pain; anxiety

资金

  1. NIDCR NIH HHS [1R01 DE 13208-01A2] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Previous research has consistently shown moderate to large differences between pain reports of men and women undergoing experimental pain testing. These differences have been shown for a variety of types of stimulation. However, only recently have sex differences been demonstrated for temporal summation of second pain. This study examined sex differences in response to temporal summation of second pain elicited by thermal stimulation of the skin. The relative influences of state anxiety and gender role expectations on temporal summation were investigated. Asymptomatic undergraduates (37 women and 30 men) underwent thermal testing of the thenar surface of the hand in a temporal summation protocol. Our results replicated those of Fillingim et al indicating that women showed increased temporal summation compared to men. We extended those findings to demonstrate that temporal summation is influenced by anxiety and gender role stereotypes about pain responding. When anxiety and gender role stereotypes are taken into account, sex is no longer a significant predictor of temporal summation. These findings highlight the contribution of social learning factors in the differences between sexes' pain perception. Perspective: Results of this study demonstrate that psychosocial variables influence pain mechanisms. Temporal summation was related to gender role expectations of pain and anxiety. These variables explain a significant portion of the differences between men and women's pain processing, and may be related to differences in clinical presentation. (C) 2004 by the American Pain Society.

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