Cited by 60Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationAutomotive and Human Injury BiomechanicsTraumatic Brain Injury Research

Coping in patients with chronic whiplash-associated disorders: a descriptive study

Open access
Peolsson, Michael, Gerdle, Björn·2004·Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: There are few studies of the way patients with chronic whiplash-associated disorders cope with pain and other aspects of the condition. This study analyses: (a) gender differences in coping strategies; (b) whether the patients can be sub-grouped based on their coping strategies and whether the sub-groups differ clinically; and (c) the relative importance of background variables, symptoms and coping for quality of life. DESIGN: A descriptive study. PATIENTS: A total of 275 consecutive chronic patients with whiplash-associated disorders referred to a university hospital. METHODS: A questionnaire covering background data, pain in different regions, symptoms not directly related to pain, Beck depression inventory, a Coping Strategy Questionnaire, a Life Satisfaction checklist (LiSat-11), SF-36 Health Survey and EuroQol instrument. RESULTS: Three groups of patients were identified with respect to coping. Whether or not active coping strategies were used had little influence on health-related quality of life. When regressing health-related quality of life items, the following regressors were the most important: degree of depression, number of not directly pain-related symptoms, and catastrophizing cognitions influenced by pain intensities. CONCLUSION: A mixture of symptoms (pain and depression) and coping (catastrophizing) seem to be interwoven and explain patients' health-related quality of life. These characteristics should be assessed when planning rehabilitation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/11026480310015530

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • The overall poor quality of life of the patients in this study, according to the SF-36, was consistent with previously published pain studies but distinctively lower than the Swedish population norm.

    “The overall poor quality of life of the patients in this study, according to the SF-36, was consistent with previously published pain studies [67–69] but distinctively lower than the Swedish population norm [38].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Peolsson, M., & Gerdle, B.
Affiliations
Linköping University (SE)
Venue
Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine
Published
2004-01-01
Volume
36
Issue
1
Pages
28-35
ISSN
1650-1977 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1968871076
Cited by
60
References
37
Citations by year
2021: 1 · 2020: 5 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 5
FWCI
1.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Automotive and Human Injury Biomechanics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Traumatic Brain Injury Research
Keywords
chronic whiplash-associated disorders, coping strategies, health-related quality of life, pain catastrophizing, depression, gender differences, active coping, rehabilitation planning
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adolescent, Adult, Chronic Disease, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Quality of Life, Sex Factors, Whiplash Injuries, Sickness Impact Profile

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