↓ Skip to main content

How Accurate Appraisal of Behavioral Costs and Benefits Guides Adaptive Pain Coping

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychiatry, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
How Accurate Appraisal of Behavioral Costs and Benefits Guides Adaptive Pain Coping
Published in
Frontiers in Psychiatry, June 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyt.2017.00103
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wiebke Gandhi, India Morrison, Petra Schweinhardt

Abstract

Coping with pain is a complex phenomenon encompassing a variety of behavioral responses and a large network of underlying neural circuits. Whether pain coping is adaptive or maladaptive depends on the type of pain (e.g., escapable or inescapable), personal factors (e.g., individual experiences with coping strategies in the past), and situational circumstances. Keeping these factors in mind, costs and benefits of different strategies have to be appraised and will guide behavioral decisions in the face of pain. In this review we present pain coping as an unconscious decision-making process during which accurately evaluated costs and benefits lead to adaptive pain coping behavior. We emphasize the importance of passive coping as an adaptive strategy when dealing with ongoing pain and thus go beyond the common view of passivity as a default state of helplessness. In combination with passive pain coping, we highlight the role of the reward system in reestablishing affective homeostasis and discuss existing evidence on a behavioral and neural level. We further present neural circuits involved in the decision-making process of pain coping when circumstances are ambiguous and, therefore, costs and benefits are difficult to anticipate. Finally, we address the wider implications of this topic by discussing its relevance for chronic pain patients.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 16%
Student > Bachelor 4 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 13%
Student > Master 4 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 6 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 7 23%
Neuroscience 4 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 8 26%
Attention Score in Context

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 01 July 2017.
All research outputs
#17,897,310
of 22,977,819 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychiatry
#6,173
of 10,116 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#226,965
of 317,403 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychiatry
#54
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,977,819 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,116 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 317,403 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.