The communal coping model of pain catastrophising: Clinical and research implications.
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Pain catastrophising has been broadly defined as an exaggerated negative orientation to actual or anticipated pain comprising elements of rumination, magnification, and helplessness. Hundreds of studies have documented associations between pain catastrophising and adverse pain outcomes, including heightened pain intensity, mental health problems, and disability. This article contrasts different conceptual models that have been advanced to explain how pain catastrophising might impact on pain outcomes. It is argued mat traditional intrapersonal models of pain catastrophising are overly simplistic and lacking in explanatory power. Research is reviewed showing mat interpersonal variables and social context are central determinants of the relation between pain catastrophising and pain outcomes. Discussion addresses the clinical implications of research showing that interpersonal factors underlie the relation between pain catastrophising and adverse pain outcomes. Discussion also addresses the implications of research on the interpersonal dimensions of pain catastrophising for theories of the psychology of pain. Keywords: catastrophizing, pain, disability, depression Over the past two decades, pain catastrophising has emerged as one of the most robust psychological predictors of pain-related outcomes (Edwards, Bingham, Bathon, & Haythornthwaite, 2006; Sullivan et al., 2001; Turk, Meichenbaum, & Genest, 1983; Weissman-Fogel, Sprecher, & Pud, 2008). Hundreds of studies have documented associations between pain catastrophising and adverse pain outcomes, including heightened pain intensity, mental health problems, and disability (Edwards et al., 2006; Keefe, Rumble, Scipio, Giardano, & Perii, 2004; Sullivan et al., 2001; Turk & Okifuji, 2002). Increasingly, researchers have turned their attention to questions concerning the processes by which pain catastrophising impacts on pain outcomes (Seminowicz. & Davis, 2006; Sullivan, 2008; Turner & Aaron, 2001). Research in this area has identified psychological, interpersonal (Cano, 2004), physiological (Wolff et al., 2008), and neuroanatomical (Gracely et al, 2004) correlates of pain catastrophising that might explain how pain catastrophising impacts on pain experience. The identification of the mechanisms that link pain catastrophising to pain outcomes has both clinical and theoretical implications. From a clinical perspective, understanding the processes by which pain catastrophising influences the experience or expression of pain might point to new avenues for intervention that could reduce the suffering and burden of persistent pain conditions. From a theoretical perspective, understanding how pain catastrophising influences pain outcomes might contribute to the elaboration or refinement of conceptual frameworks that address the linkages between psychology and physiology in the generation of pain experience. This article focuses on research that has addressed the interpersonal processes involved in the relation between pain catastrophising and pain outcomes. Given the volume of research that has been conducted in this area, the research reviewed in this article is intended to be illustrative as opposed to exhaustive. The article ends with a discussion of the clinical and theoretical implications of the research that has accumulated to date. Catastrophising: The Construct Pain catastrophising has been broadly defined as an exaggerated negative orientation to actual or anticipated pain comprising elements of rumination, magnification, and helplessness (Sullivan et al., 2001). Early research on pain catastrophising proceeded in the relative absence of a guiding theoretical framework (Spanos, Perlini, & Robertson, 1989). Interest in pain catastrophising continued to grow primarily as a. result of the consistency with which research showed that pain catastrophising was associated with a wide range of adverse health and mental health outcomes. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,010 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle