Coping strategies predict disability in patients with primary fibromyalgia
Abstract
We administered the Coping Strategies Questionnaire (CSQ) to 80 patients with fibromyalgia (FM) to determine the relationship between coping strategies and functional disability. A principal components factor analysis revealed two dimensions of patients' CSQ responses: Coping Attempts and Catastrophizing. Coping Attempts consists of five scales: Reinterpreting Pain, Ignoring Pain Sensations, Diverting Attention, Coping Self-Statements and Increasing Activity Level. Catastrophizing is comprised solely of the CSQ Catastrophizing scale. Both coping strategy dimensions were significantly related to patients' disability scores on the Sickness Impact Profile even after controlling for demographic and clinical variables as well as neuroticism. Coping Attempts was associated with higher levels of Physical (P < 0.05) and Total Disability (P < 0.01), and lower levels of Psychosocial Disability (P < 0.05). Catastrophizing was associated with higher levels of Total Disability (P < 0.01). These relationships suggest that investigators should attempt to identify Coping Attempts strategies that best reduce patients' psychological distress in the laboratory. It then may be possible to teach patients to use these strategies to reduce distress in their home and work environments.
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?
Patients who catastrophize have higher levels of disability.
“studies have shown that patients who catastrophize have higher levels of disability,71”
From Psychological aspects of persistent pain: Current state of the science (2004) · cites this paper as [71]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 40 · Cited by 228
- Authors
- Martin, M. Y., Bradley, L. A., Alexander, R. W., Alarcón, G. S., Triana-Alexander, M., Aaron, L. A., & Alberts, K. R.
- Affiliations
- University of Alabama (US)
- Corresponding author
- Martin, Michelle Y
- Venue
- Pain
- Published
- 1996-11
- Volume
- 68
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 45-53
- ISSN
- 0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2018064474
- Cited by
- 228
- References
- 40
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 3 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 12
- FWCI
- 2.19
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Pain (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- University of Alabama at Birmingham
- National Institutes of Health (5r01ar043136-10)
- U.S. Public Health Service (5 M0100032)
- National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (1-R01-AR-43136-01, P60 AR20164)
- NIH Clinical Center
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Fibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Psychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
- Keywords
- fibromyalgia, coping strategies, functional disability, catastrophizing, psychosocial disability, physical disability, Coping Strategies Questionnaire, Sickness Impact Profile, psychological distress
- MeSH terms
- Adaptation, Psychological, Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Disability Evaluation, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Female, Fibromyalgia, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Predictive Value of Tests, Surveys and Questionnaires
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