4.6 Article

Catastrophizing is associated with pain intensity, psychological distress, and pain-related disability among individuals with chronic pain after spinal cord injury

期刊

PAIN
卷 98, 期 1-2, 页码 127-134

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0304-3959(02)00045-3

关键词

spinal cord injury; catastrophizing; coping; chronic pain

资金

  1. NICHD NIH HHS [1P01 HD/NS 33988] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Little research has examined the role of patient cognitive and behavioral responses, including catastrophizing, in adjustment to chronic pain associated with spinal cord injury (SCI). The objective of this study was to examine the associations of catastrophizing and specific pain coping strategies with pain intensity, psychological distress, and pain-related disability among individuals with chronic pain and SCI, after controlling for important demographic and SCI-related variables that might affect outcomes. Participants in this study were 174 community residents with SCI and chronic pain who completed a mailed questionnaire that included the SF-36 Mental Health scale, Coping Strategies Questionnaire, and Graded Chronic Pain Scale. The pain coping and catastrophizing measures explained an additional 29% of the variance in pain intensity after adjusting for the demographic and SCI variables (P < 0.001). The coping and catastrophizing scales accounted for an additional 30% of the variance in psychological distress (P < 0.001) and 11% of the variance in pain-related disability (P < 0.001), after controlling for pain intensity and demographic and SCI variables. Catastrophizing, but not any other single pain coping strategy, was consistently strongly and independently associated with the outcome measures. Potentially, the assessment and treatment of catastrophizing may reduce psychological distress and pain-related disability among individuals with chronic pain and SCL (C) 2002 International Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Elsevier Science B.V. 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

4.6
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