Cited by 55Music Therapy and HealthPediatric Pain Management TechniquesPain Management and Placebo Effect

Coping with the stress of a painful medical procedure

Fauerbach, J.A, Lawrence, J.W, Haythornthwaite, J.A, Richter, L·2002·Behaviour Research and Therapy

Abstract

To evaluate its effect on procedure-related distress, the focus of attention was manipulated by providing training to hospitalized acute burn patients (n=42). Participants were randomly assigned to attention focusing (i.e. attending to procedural sensations) or music distraction (i.e. attention diverting) coping interventions, or to usual care during the target dressing change. Coping behavior (i.e. distraction, focusing, and three confounding methods, ignoring, catastrophizing, reinterpreting), tension and intrusiveness were evaluated 24 h retrospectively (i.e. for the prior procedure), during the targeted procedure, and 30 min after the target procedure. When coping during the target procedure by ignoring, reinterpreting, and catastrophizing were covaried, the music distraction group experienced significantly fewer intrusions, and the attention focus group had more intrusions. Additionally, secondary analyses revealed that coping by ignoring during the prior day's procedure significantly predicted higher procedural tension during, and more intrusions following, the targeted procedure. Suppression-based forms of emotion-focused coping may be enhanced by training in the use of an explicit distractor.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0005-7967(01)00079-1

Cites

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?

  • Couples-based interventions for patients with painful cancers appear more efficacious than treatment as usual or exclusively patient-focused interventions.

    “couples- based interventions for patients with painful cancers appear to show greater efficacy than either treatment as usual or exclusively patient-focused interventions 102–104”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 38 · Cited by 55

Authors
Fauerbach, J. A., Lawrence, J. W., Haythornthwaite, J. A., & Richter, L.
Affiliations
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University (US)
Corresponding author
Fauerbach, J.A
Venue
Behaviour Research and Therapy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2002-09
Volume
40
Issue
9
Pages
1003-1015
ISSN
0005-7967 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1995636879
Cited by
55
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 3
FWCI
2.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Behaviour Research and Therapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Fetzer Institute
  • National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Music Therapy and Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pediatric Pain Management Techniques
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Pain Management and Placebo Effect
Keywords
pain coping, painful medical procedures, burn patients, attentional focus, music distraction, emotion-focused coping, suppression, catastrophizing, ignoring, intrusiveness, dressing changes, coping skills training
MeSH terms
Acute Disease, Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Bandages, Burns, Humans, Pain, Pain Measurement, Surveys and Questionnaires, Stress, Psychological, Single-Blind Method, 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