| Title |
Understanding and Promoting Resiliency in Patients with Chronic Headache
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11910-015-0609-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Cynthia M. Stonnington, Dhwani J. Kothari, Mary C. Davis |
| Abstract |
Even among patients with the same type and severity of headache, there is considerable variability in functional outcomes. Some individuals are resilient, able to thrive despite pain, whereas others find that pain is an overwhelming burden that comes to define their lives. A substantial body of evidence suggests that patients' cognitive, emotional, and behavioral coping responses to their pain play a significant role in determining their long-term health. Resilient pain responses, which are shaped by both qualities of the individual and his/her social environment, can be learned and thus hold promise as targets for treatment. We draw on recent empirical findings that identify which pain beliefs, appraisals, and behaviors in response to pain are key to resilient and non-resilient coping among patients with chronic headache. We discuss how pain self-efficacy and pain acceptance set the stage for adaptive behaviors that have been linked to sustained well-being and good quality of life. We then describe psychosocial and behavioral interventions that show promise in promoting resilience among headache patients and conclude by considering areas ripe for further inquiry. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 33% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 33% |
| Australia | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 52 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 9 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 15% |
| Researcher | 6 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 12% |
| Professor | 6 | 12% |
| Other | 8 | 15% |
| Unknown | 9 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 20 | 38% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 10% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Unknown | 15 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 20 November 2018.
All research outputs
#1,839,312
of 22,836,570 outputs
Outputs from Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports
#81
of 914 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,054
of 392,255 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports
#2
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,836,570 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 914 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
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 392,255 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.