Cited by 241Pain Management and TreatmentMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationPain Mechanisms and Treatments

Cognitions, coping and social environment predict adjustment to phantom limb pain

Jensen, Mark P., Ehde, Dawn M., Hoffman, Amy J., Patterson, David R., Czerniecki, Joseph M., Robinson, Lawrence R.·2002·Pain

Abstract

Biopsychosocial models of chronic pain hypothesize a role for psychological and environmental factors in adjustment to chronic pain. To test the utility of such models for understanding phantom limb pain, 61 persons with recent amputations were administered measures of average phantom limb pain intensity, pain interference, depression, pain coping use, pain cognitions and appraisals, and social environmental variables 1 month post-amputation, and the measures of pain intensity, pain interference, and depression again 5 months later. Multiple regression analyses showed that the psychosocial predictors made a statistically significant contribution to the concurrent prediction of average phantom limb pain, pain interference, and depression at the initial assessment, and a significant contribution to the prediction of subsequent change in pain interference and depression over the course of 5 months. The results support the utility of studying phantom limb pain from a biopsychosocial perspective, and identify specific biopsychosocial factors (e.g., catastrophizing cognitions, social support, solicitous responses from family members, and resting as a coping response) that may play an important role in adjustment to phantom limb pain.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0304-3959(01)00390-6

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?

  • Several studies indicate that the DNIC response is more pronounced in males than females, suggesting better endogenous pain inhibition in males.

    “Several studies indicate the DNIC response is more pronounced in males than females, suggesting better functioning of the endogenous pain inhibitory system among males 176–178.”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 52 · Cited by 241

Authors
Jensen, M. P., Ehde, D. M., Hoffman, A. J., Patterson, D. R., Czerniecki, J. M., & Robinson, L. R.
Affiliations
University of Washington (US)
Corresponding author
Jensen, Mark P.
Venue
Pain
Published
2002-01
Volume
95
Issue
1
Pages
133-142
ISSN
0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2082857192
Cited by
241
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 14
FWCI
11.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
  • National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (P01 HD/NS33988)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Pain Mechanisms and Treatments
Keywords
phantom limb pain, chronic pain, biopsychosocial model, pain-related cognitions, pain coping, social support, pain catastrophizing, depression, pain interference, amputation
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Cognition, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Male, Middle Aged, Phantom Limb, Regression Analysis, Social Environment, Social Support

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