| Title |
Catastrophizing, Acceptance, and Coping as Mediators Between Pain and Emotional Distress and Disability in Fibromyalgia
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10880-018-9543-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
María J. Lami, M. Pilar Martínez, Elena Miró, Ana I. Sánchez, Manuel A. Guzmán |
| Abstract |
Catastrophizing, acceptance, and coping have an important predictive value in chronic pain; however, it is not known which of these variables has the greatest contribution in fibromyalgia (FM). This study explored the mediating role of catastrophizing, acceptance, and coping in the relationship between pain and emotional distress/disability in a FM sample. Ninety-two FM patients and 51 healthy participants controls were evaluated on pain- and psychological-related variables. Catastrophizing, acceptance, behavioral coping, and emotional coping were significantly correlated with emotional distress and/or disability. Catastrophizing had a significant effect as a mediator on the relationship between pain and depression/anxiety. The current management of FM could improve by including cognitive techniques aimed at modifying the negative appraisal of pain. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 129 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 129 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 20 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 12 | 9% |
| Researcher | 10 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 7% |
| Other | 20 | 16% |
| Unknown | 45 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 36 | 28% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 8% |
| Neuroscience | 8 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 9 | 7% |
| Unknown | 49 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 March 2018.
All research outputs
#17,240,811
of 25,320,147 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings
#343
of 490 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#306,560
of 487,300 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings
#24
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,320,147 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 490 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 487,300 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.