Coping with the stress of a painful medical procedure
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
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?
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”
From Evaluating psychosocial contributions to chronic pain outcomes (2018) · cites this paper as [102]
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