The utility of cognitive coping strategies for altering pain perception: a meta-analysis
Abstract
The literature on the utility of cognitive coping strategies in pain control has been unclear because of 2 principal limitations: the lack of a validated classification system, and reliance on qualitative and quasi-statistical reviews. In this study, an empirically based multidimensional taxonomy was employed to categorize the variety of cognitive coping strategies into 6 major classes: external focus of attention, neutral imaginings, pleasant imaginings, dramatized coping, rhythmic cognitive activity and pain acknowledging. Meta-analytic techniques were introduced to evaluate the overall efficacy of cognitive strategies (in comparison to no-treatment controls), the relative efficacy of these strategies (how the different groups of strategies compare with one another), and the substantive efficacy of such strategies (how cognitive strategies fare against placebo/expectancy conditions). Results revealed that, in general, cognitive coping strategies are more effective in alleviating pain as compared to either no-treatment or expectancy controls. Each individual class of strategies significantly attenuates pain although the imagery methods are the most effective whereas pain acknowledging is the least effective. Positive expectancy is no better than no treatment. These findings stand in contrast with previous reviews that have not assigned prime importance to imagery or for that matter have not shown cognitive strategies to be particularly effective. Results are discussed with reference to attentional models and methodological issues.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Affective imagery is particularly suited to modulating pain.
“affective imagery is particularly suited to modulating pain [10].”
From Distinct Brain Systems Mediate the Effects of Nociceptive Input and Self-Regulation on Pain (2015) · cites this paper as [10]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 93 · Cited by 290
- Authors
- Fernandez, E., & Turk, D. C.
- Affiliations
- University of Pittsburgh (US)
- Corresponding author
- Turk, Dennis C.
- Venue
- Pain
- Published
- 1989-08
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 123-135
- ISSN
- 0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2048697078
- Cited by
- 290
- References
- 93
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 0.86
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Pain (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (ARNS 38698)
- National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (DE 07514)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Pain Management and Placebo Effect
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pediatric Pain Management Techniques
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Treatment
- Keywords
- cognitive coping, pain perception, pain management, pain imagery, external attention, attentional models
- MeSH terms
- Adaptation, Psychological, Cognition, Humans, 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