Cited by 102Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationMindfulness and Compassion InterventionsPain Management and Treatment

Mindfulness, functioning and catastrophizing after multidisciplinary pain management for chronic low back pain

Cassidy, Emma Louise, Atherton, Rachel Jane, Robertson, Noelle, Walsh, David Andrew, Gillett, Raphael·2012·Pain

Abstract

Summary Relationships between self-reports of mindfulness, catastrophizing, disability and depression were explored before and after a multidisciplinary cognitive-behavioural intervention for chronic pain. We examined mindfulness in people with chronic low back pain who were attending a multidisciplinary pain management programme. Participants completed questionnaires at baseline (n = 116) and after a 3-month cognitive-behaviourally informed multidisciplinary intervention (n = 87). Self-reported mindfulness was measured before and after the intervention, and relationships were explored between mindfulness, disability, affect and pain catastrophizing. Mindfulness increased following participation in the intervention, and greater mindfulness was predictive of lower levels of disability, anxiety, depression and catastrophizing, even when pain severity was controlled. Mediator analyses suggested that the relationship between mindfulness and disability was mediated by catastrophizing. It is possible that cognitive-behavioural interventions and processes can affect both catastrophizing and mindfulness.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.pain.2011.11.027

Cites

44 of 44 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

1 of the 45 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cassidy, E. L., Atherton, R. J., Robertson, N., Walsh, D. A., & Gillett, R.
Affiliations
  • University of Nottingham (GB)
  • Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • University of Leicester (GB)
Corresponding author
Cassidy, Emma Louise
Venue
Pain
Published
2012-03
Volume
153
Issue
3
Pages
644-650
ISSN
0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2076286636
Cited by
102
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 4
FWCI
7.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Leicester Research Archive (University of Leicester) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Treatment
Keywords
mindfulness, pain catastrophizing, chronic low back pain, multidisciplinary pain management, cognitive-behavioural intervention, disability, depression, anxiety, pain intensity, mediation
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Anxiety, Awareness, Cross-Sectional Studies, Depression, Disability Evaluation, Female, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Middle Aged, Pain Measurement, Surveys and Questionnaires, Regression Analysis, Retrospective Studies, Low Back Pain, Young Adult, Catastrophization, Chronic Pain, Pain Management

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