CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 122Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationPain Management and TreatmentPediatric Pain Management Techniques

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 44 of the 44 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Social environment moderates the association between catastrophizing and pain among persons with a spinal cord injury

Giardino, Nicholas D, Jensen, Mark P, Turner, Judith A, Ehde, Dawn M, Cardenas, Diana D·2003·Pain
DOI 10.1016/s0304-3959(03)00226-4
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Catastrophizing, or exaggerating the negative consequences of a situation, is associated with higher pain intensity, emotional distress, and functional disability among persons with chronic pain. According to the 'communal coping' model, catastrophizing in persons with pain may function as a social communication directed toward obtaining social proximity, support, or assistance. We tested the hypothesis, based on this model, that social factors would moderate the association between catastrophizing and sensory and affective pain. Seventy-four persons with a spinal cord injury and chronic pain completed measures of catastrophizing, solicitousness, depression, and sensory and affective pain before beginning a randomized controlled medication trial. Catastrophizing was significantly associated with solicitousness and pain reports. The association between catastrophizing and sensory pain scores was stronger for those who lived with a spouse or partner than for those who lived with someone else. In addition, there was a stronger association between catastrophizing and affective pain for those who reported greater solicitousness in their relationship. The results provide partial support for the communal coping model of catastrophizing.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0304-3959(03)00226-4

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 44 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 122

Related

Metadata

Authors
Giardino, N. D., Jensen, M. P., Turner, J. A., Ehde, D. M., & Cardenas, D. D.
Affiliations
University of Washington (US)
Corresponding author
Giardino, Nicholas D
ORCID
Venue
Pain
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2003-11
Volume
106
Issue
1
Pages
19-25
ISSN
0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/s0304-3959(03)00226-4
OpenAlex
W2003004823
Cited by
122
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 9
FWCI
3.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Center for Research Resources (M01RR0037, M01RR000037)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (1P01 HD/NS33988)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pediatric Pain Management Techniques
Keywords
catastrophizing, spinal cord injury, chronic pain, affective pain, sensory pain, social environment, living arrangements, depression, pain intensity
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Affective Symptoms, Chronic Disease, Depression, Family Health, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pain, Social Environment, Social Support, Spinal Cord Injuries, Linear Models, Spouses

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