Cited by 68Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPediatric Pain Management Techniques

Understanding pain and depression in back pain: the role of catastrophizing, help-/hopelessness, and thought suppression as potential mediators

Hülsebusch, Janina, Hasenbring, Monika I., Rusu, Adina C.·2016·International Journal of Behavioral Medicine

Abstract

Purpose The cognitive mediation hypothesis describes the influence of psychological factors on the relationship between pain and depression such as cognitions of catastrophizing and help-/hopelessness. More recent research also emphasizes the role of suppression of negative thoughts and experiences such as pain. However, there is little research investigating direct and indirect effects of these contrasting cognitions.Method A total of 164 acute and sub-acute non-specific back pain patients participated in this study. Pain intensity, depression, and pain-related cognitions were measured using questionnaires, such as the Beck Depression Inventory and the Kiel Pain Inventory. Data were analyzed using structural equation modeling.Results The results of the path analysis support the hypothesis that cognitive coping strategies have a mediating effect on pain and depression. Consistent with previous research, we found that pain had no direct relation with depression. Help-/hopelessness had a direct path to depression, whereas catastrophizing had an indirect effect via increased help-/hopelessness. The current results also indicate that thought suppression mediated the relationship between pain and depression via both direct and indirect effects.Conclusion Cognitive mediators, such as help-/hopelessness, catastrophizing, and thought suppression, have a significant impact on depression in patients with acute and sub-acute back pain. The current results may aid in the optimization of treatments for these patients by focusing attention toward the modification of dysfunctional cognitive pain-coping strategies.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s12529-015-9522-y

Cites

100 of 100 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hülsebusch, J., Hasenbring, M. I., & Rusu, A. C.
Affiliations
  • Ruhr University Bochum (DE)
  • University of London (GB)
Corresponding author
Hasenbring, Monika I.
Venue
International Journal of Behavioral Medicine
Published
2015-11-20
Volume
23
Issue
3
Pages
251-259
ISSN
  • 1070-5503 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-7558
OpenAlex
W2176847181
Cited by
68
References
99
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 2
FWCI
4.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal of Behavioral Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (HA1684)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pediatric Pain Management Techniques
Keywords
back pain, depression, pain catastrophizing, hopelessness, helplessness, thought suppression, cognitive mediation, pain-related cognitions, cognitive coping, pain intensity
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Aged, Back Pain, Cognition, Depression, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pain Measurement, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Surveys and Questionnaires, Young Adult, Catastrophization

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review