Cited by 694Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationRheumatoid Arthritis Research and TherapiesPediatric Pain Management Techniques

Coping with rheumatoid arthritis pain: catastrophizing as a maladaptive strategy

Keefe, Francis J., Brown, Gregory K., Wallston, Kenneth A., Caldwell, David S.·1989·Pain

Abstract

The present study examined catastrophizing in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. Subjects were 223 RA patients who were participants in a longitudinal study. Each patient completed the Catastrophizing scale of the Coping Strategies Questionnaire (CSQ) on 2 occasions separated by 6 months (time 1, time 2). The Catastrophizing scale is designed to measure negative self-statements, castastrophizing thoughts and ideation (sample items = 'I worry all the time about whether it will end,' 'It is awful and I feel that it overwhelms me'). Data analysis revealed that the Catastrophizing scale was internally reliable (alpha = 0.91) and had high test-retest reliability (r = 0.81) over a 6 month period. Correlational analyses revealed that catastrophizing recorded at time 1 was related to pain intensity ratings, functional impairment on the Arthritis Impact Measurement scale (AIMS), and depression at time 2. Predictive findings regarding catastrophizing while modest were obtained after controlling for initial scores on the dependent variables, demographic variables (age, sex, socioeconomic status), duration of pain, and disability support status. Taken together, these findings suggest that catastrophizing is a maladaptive coping strategy in RA patients. Further research is needed to determine whether cognitive-behavioral interventions designed to decrease catastrophizing can reduce pain and improve the physical and psychological functioning of RA patients.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/0304-3959(89)90152-8

Cites

20 of 20 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
Keefe, F. J., Brown, G. K., Wallston, K. A., & Caldwell, D. S.
Affiliations
  • Vanderbilt University (US)
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • Duke Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
  • Keefe, Francis J.
  • Caldwell, David S.
Venue
Pain
Published
1989-04
Volume
37
Issue
1
Pages
51-56
ISSN
0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2039883270
Cited by
694
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 30 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 23 · 2012: 25
FWCI
12.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5r01nr001007-10)
  • National Institute of Nursing Research (5 R01 NR 1007)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Rheumatoid Arthritis Research and Therapies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pediatric Pain Management Techniques
Keywords
rheumatoid arthritis, pain catastrophizing, maladaptive coping, pain intensity, functional disability, depression, Coping Strategies Questionnaire, cognitive-behavioral intervention, psychosocial functioning
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Arthritis, Rheumatoid, Chronic Disease, Female, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Middle Aged, Pain

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