Cited by 156Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationPediatric Pain Management TechniquesPain Management and Placebo Effect

Pain catastrophizing and general health status in a large Dutch community sample

Severeijns, Rudy, van den Hout, Marcel A., Vlaeyen, Johan W.S., Picavet, Susan J.H.·2002·Pain

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to examine the association between pain catastrophizing and general health status in a Dutch adult community sample, including various subgroups of people with musculoskeletal pain in the analyses. For exploratory reasons this study partly replicated previous studies of the factor structure, reliability, and validity of the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS). Results demonstrated that across different pain subgroups, catastrophizing uniquely contributed variance to the prediction of the various aspects of general health status beyond the variance explained by pain intensity, age, gender, and chronicity. Across subgroups strongest associations were found between catastrophizing and mental health, general health perception, social functioning, and vitality. Furthermore, the association between catastrophizing and the various aspects of general health status was not moderated by the chronicity of the pain. Results of the confirmatory factor analysis statistically confirmed a three-factor model of the PCS, which was invariant across different subgroups of people with musculoskeletal pain. Inter-factor correlations were high, and the incremental explanatory power of the three-factor model over that of a one-factor model was only marginal. This implies that a one-factor model might be justifiable as well, at least in the general community. Across various pain subgroups the reliability of the PCS total and subscales was adequate. Additional evidence for the concurrent validity of the PCS was found as well.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0304-3959(02)00219-1

Cites

42 of 42 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?

  • Catastrophizing is fusion of thought related to feeling more pain, more emotional distress, and worse life adjustment.

    “Catastrophizing is fusion of thought related to feeling more pain, more emotional distress, and worse life adjustment (Severeijns et al., 2002).”

    From Group Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) for Fibromyalgia Patients (2024) · cites this paper as Severeijns et al., 2002

  • Taken together, findings suggest that catastrophizing is important in understanding pain, not only in samples of patients seen in medical settings but also in samples of individuals recruited from the general community.

    “Taken together, the findings of these studies suggest that catastrophizing is important in understanding pain, not only in samples of patients seen in medical settings but also in samples of individuals recruited from the general community.104,135”
  • In that large Dutch community sample of individuals with musculoskeletal pain, pain catastrophizing was significantly related to greater limitations in social activities.

    “Catastrophizing was significantly related to a number of negative outcomes including higher levels of depression and nervousness, more negative general health status, greater limitations in social activities, and lower energy level.”
  • In that large Dutch community sample of individuals with musculoskeletal pain, pain catastrophizing was significantly related to lower energy level.

    “Catastrophizing was significantly related to a number of negative outcomes including higher levels of depression and nervousness, more negative general health status, greater limitations in social activities, and lower energy level.”
  • In a large Dutch community sample of individuals with musculoskeletal pain (N = 2789), pain catastrophizing was significantly related to higher levels of depression and nervousness.

    “Catastrophizing was significantly related to a number of negative outcomes including higher levels of depression and nervousness, more negative general health status, greater limitations in social activities, and lower energy level.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Severeijns, R., van den Hout, M. A., Vlaeyen, J. W. S., & Picavet, S. J. H.
Affiliations
  • Maastricht University Medical Centre (NL)
  • Maastricht University (NL)
Corresponding author
Severeijns, Rudy
Venue
Pain
Published
2002-09
Volume
99
Issue
1
Pages
367-376
ISSN
0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2033777655
Cited by
156
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 8
FWCI
3.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Rivm (National Institute for Public Health and the Environment) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pediatric Pain Management Techniques
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Pain Management and Placebo Effect
Keywords
pain catastrophizing, health status, musculoskeletal pain, Pain Catastrophizing Scale, factor structure, measurement invariance, mental health, vitality, social functioning, pain chronicity, community-dwelling adults
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Attitude to Health, Female, Health Status, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Musculoskeletal Diseases, Netherlands, Pain, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Reproducibility of Results

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