4.6 Article

The roles of beliefs, catastrophizing, and coping in the functioning of patients with temporomandibular disorders

期刊

PAIN
卷 92, 期 1-2, 页码 41-51

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0304-3959(00)00469-3

关键词

chronic pain; coping; beliefs; catastrophizing; temporomandibular disorders

资金

  1. NIDCR NIH HHS [DE-08773, P01 DE08773] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pain-related beliefs, catastrophizing, and coping have been shown to be associated with measures of physical and psychosocial functioning among patients with chronic musculoskeletal and rheumatologic pain. However, little is known about the relative importance of these process variables in the functioning of patients with temporomandibular disorders (TMD). To address this gap in the literature, self-report measures of pain, beliefs, catastrophizing, coping, pain-related activity interference, jaw activity limitations, and depression, as well as an objective measure of jaw opening impairment, were obtained from 118 patients at a TMD specialty clinic. Controlling for age, gender, and pain intensity. significant associations were found between (1) pain beliefs and activity interference, depression. and non-masticatory jaw activity limitations, (2) catastrophizing and activity interference, depression. and non-masticatory jaw activity limitations. and (3) coping and activity interference and depression. Controlling for age. fender, pain intensity. and the other process variables, significant associations were found between (1) beliefs and activity interference and depression, and (2) catastrophizing and depression. No process variable was associated significantly with the objective measure of jaw impairment. The results suggest that for patients with moderate or high levels of TMD pain and dysfunction, beliefs about pain play an important role in physical and psychosocial functioning. (C) 2001 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