Cited by 275Health, psychology, and well-beingCancer survivorship and carePsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 56 of the 56 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Illness perceptions and coping in physical health conditions: A meta-analysis

Open access
Dempster, Martin, Howell, Doris, McCorry, Noleen K.·2015·Journal of Psychosomatic Research

Abstract

Objective There is a considerable body of research linking elements of Leventhal's Common Sense Model (CSM) to emotional well-being/distress outcomes among people with physical illness. The present study aims to consolidate this literature and examine the evidence for the role of coping strategies within this literature.Methods A systematic review was conducted where the outcomes of interest were: depression, anxiety and quality of life. A total of 1050 articles were identified and 31 articles were considered eligible to be included in the review.Results Across a range of illnesses, perceptions of consequences of the illness and emotional representations were consistently the illness perceptions with the strongest relationship with the outcomes. Coping variables tend to be stronger predictors of outcomes than the illness perception variables. The evidence for the mediating effect of coping was inconsistent.Conclusions Illness perceptions and coping have an important role to play in the explanation of distress outcomes across a range of physical health conditions. However, some clarity about the theoretical position of coping in relation to illness perceptions, and further longitudinal work is needed if we are to apply this information to the design of interventions for the improvement of psychological health among people with physical health conditions.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2015.10.006

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Dempster, M., Howell, D., & McCorry, N. K.
Affiliations
  • Queen's University Belfast (GB)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • Marie Curie Hospice (GB)
Corresponding author
Dempster, Martin
Venue
Journal of Psychosomatic Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-12
Volume
79
Issue
6
Pages
506-513
ISSN
0022-3999 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2188189394
Cited by
275
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 39 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 7
FWCI
2.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Psychosomatic Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (Queen's University Belfast) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health, psychology, and well-being
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Psychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Keywords
illness perception, coping strategies, physical illness, depression, anxiety, quality of life, emotional distress, emotion representation
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Anxiety, Depression, Emotions, Health Status, Humans, Judgment, Quality of Life, Stress, Psychological

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