CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 252Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationPain Management and Placebo EffectPediatric Pain Management Techniques

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 30 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Disengagement from pain: the role of catastrophic thinking about pain

Van Damme, Stefaan, Crombez, Geert, Eccleston, Christopher·2004·Pain
DOI 10.1016/j.pain.2003.09.023
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This paper reports an experimental investigation of attentional engagement to and disengagement from pain. Thirty-seven pain-free volunteers performed a cueing task in which they were instructed to respond to visual target stimuli, i.e. the words 'pain' and 'tone'. Targets were preceded by pain stimuli or tone stimuli as cues. Participants were characterized as high or low pain catastrophizers, using self-reports. We found that the effect of cueing upon target detection was differential for high and low pain catastrophizers. Analyses revealed a similar amount of attentional engagement to pain in both groups. However, we also found that participants high in pain catastrophizing had difficulty disengaging from pain, whereas participants low in pain catastrophizing showed no retarded disengagement from pain. Our results provide further evidence that catastrophic thinking enhances the attentional demand of pain, particularly resulting in difficulty disengaging from pain. The clinical implications of these findings are discussed.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.pain.2003.09.023

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 30 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–252 of 252

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Van Damme, S., Crombez, G., & Eccleston, C.
Affiliations
  • Utrecht University (NL)
  • University of Bath (GB)
ORCID
Venue
Pain
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2004-01
Volume
107
Issue
1
Pages
70-76
ISSN
0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.pain.2003.09.023
OpenAlex
W2129150173
Cited by
252
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 15
FWCI
6.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Pain Management and Placebo Effect
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pediatric Pain Management Techniques
Keywords
pain catastrophizing, catastrophic thinking, attentional disengagement, attentional engagement, target detection, pain perception
MeSH terms
Acoustic Stimulation, Adolescent, Adult, Analysis of Variance, Anxiety, Attention, Cues, Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation, Female, Humans, Male, Pain, Pain Measurement, Random Allocation, Reaction Time, Thinking

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