4.6 Article

Do beliefs, coping, and catastrophizing independently predict functioning in patients with chronic pain?

期刊

PAIN
卷 85, 期 1-2, 页码 115-125

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0304-3959(99)00259-6

关键词

chronic pain; coping; beliefs; catastrophizing

资金

  1. NINDS NIH HHS [NS31638] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS AND STROKE [R01NS031638] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Physical and psychosocial disability in patients with chronic pain have been shown to be associated with patients' pain-related beliefs, tendency to catastrophize, and pain coping strategy use. However, little is known about whether beliefs, catastrophizing, and coping strategies are independently associated with patient adjustment. Identification of specific beliefs, cognitive responses, and coping strategies strongly and independently associated with physical and psychosocial functioning would suggest the importance of targeting those variables for modification in treatment. One hundred sixty-nine patients entering a multidisciplinary pain treatment program completed measures of pain, beliefs, coping, catastrophizing, physical disability, and depression. Principal components analyses were used to create belief and coping components, which were then entered in multiple regression analyses predicting physical disability and depression. Belief scores significantly and independently predicted both physical disability and depression, after controlling for age, sex, pain intensity, catastrophizing, and coping. Coping scores significantly and independently predicted physical disability, but not depression, whereas catastrophizing independently predicted depression, but not physical disability. These findings suggest the importance of targeting specific pain-related beliefs and coping strategies, as well as catastrophizing, for modification in the treatment of patients with chronic pain. (C) 2000 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