Cited by 179Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationPain Management and TreatmentPediatric Pain Management Techniques

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 76 of the 79 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 1 are not checked yet; none of the 60 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Chronic pain and sex-differences; women accept and move, while men feel blue

Open access

Abstract

PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to explore differences between male and female patients entering a rehabilitation program at a pain clinic in order to gain a greater understanding of different approaches to be used in rehabilitation. METHOD: 1371 patients referred to a specialty pain rehabilitation clinic, completed sociodemographic and pain related questionnaires. They rated their pain acceptance (CPAQ-8), their kinesiophobia (TSK), the impact of pain in their life (MPI), anxiety and depression levels (HAD) and quality of life scales: the SF-36, LiSat-11, and the EQ-5D. Because of the large sample size of the study, the significance level was set at the p ≤.01. RESULTS: Analysis by t-test showed that when both sexes experience the same pain severity, women report significantly higher activity level, pain acceptance and social support while men report higher kinesiophobia, mood disturbances and lower activity level. CONCLUSION: Pain acceptance (CPAQ-8) and kinesiophobia (TSK) showed the clearest differences between men and women. Pain acceptance and kinesiophobia are behaviorally defined and have the potential to be changed.

Checked 2026-10-09 · 1 reference not checked yet

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

In 1,371 patients referred to a Swedish specialty pain rehabilitation clinic, women and men reported similar pain severity, but women showed higher pain acceptance, activity engagement, and social/life satisfaction, while men showed higher kinesiophobia and worse mental health. The clearest sex differences were in pain acceptance (CPAQ-8) and kinesiophobia (TSK), both behaviorally defined and potentially modifiable in rehabilitation.

Key findings

  • At comparable pain severity (MPI pain severity: women 4.54 vs men 4.43, p = .123), women reported significantly higher pain acceptance: CPAQ-8 Activity Engagement 13.46 vs 11.45 (p < .001, d = .21) and Pain Willingness 10.08 vs 8.36 (p < .001, d = .33).
  • Men reported significantly higher kinesiophobia (TSK: 43.52 vs 39.50, p < .001, d = -.44) and lower general activity level (MPI: 2.16 vs 2.36, p < .001, d = .21).
  • Men scored significantly lower on SF-36 Mental Health than women (52.47 vs 56.53, p = .007, d = .18), while HAD anxiety and depression did not differ significantly (anxiety p = .245; depression p = .056).
  • Women had more pain locations (14 vs 10, p < .001, d = .50) and more widespread pain (35.1% vs 21.8%, p < .001), and reported higher satisfaction with life as a whole, friends/acquaintances, sexual life, and family life.

Methods

  • Cross-sectional pre-rehabilitation data from 1,371 consecutive patients with chronic musculoskeletal non-malignant pain referred to the Pain and Rehabilitation Centre, University Hospital, Linköping, Sweden, between 2009 and April 2011; 68.4% were women.
  • Participants completed sociodemographic and pain-related questionnaires including CPAQ-8, TSK, MPI, HAD, SF-36, LiSat-11, and EQ-5D.
  • Analyses used descriptive statistics, chi-squared tests, and two-tailed t-tests, with significance set at p ≤ .01 and “highly” significant at p ≤ .001; Cohen’s d effect sizes were calculated, and missing data were excluded pairwise.

Limitations

  • The authors state that the large sample size can produce statistically significant but small-magnitude differences; effect sizes were sometimes low, and results should be treated with caution.
  • The authors note reliance on self-reports, lack of observational measures such as physical capacity or sedentary time, and a heterogeneous sample with large SDs; they also state that exploratory cross-sectional design prevents causal inferences or conclusions about treatment response.
  • Evident from the text: several analyses had smaller subsamples than the full 1,371 (e.g., TSK n = 869; CPAQ-8 Pain Willingness n = 1,086), and the sample was predominantly women, which may affect generalizability.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0175737

Cites

76 of 77 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

3 tests recomputed · 0 with the reported and recomputed p on opposite sides of .05

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 60 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 40 claims

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 27
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 3
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 15
36 of 36
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Understanding baseline sex differences in pain-related measures can inform different approaches in rehabilitation.

    “The aim of this study is to explore differences between male and female patients entering a rehabilitation program at a pain clinic in order to gain a greater understanding of different approaches to be used in rehabilitation.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The observed sex differences in pain-related measures are not explained by age differences between men and women.

    “Women were significantly younger than men (Age M = 45 vs. men’s M = 51) t (1367) = -6.52, p < .001, d = .41 (Table 2)”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The observed sex differences in activity, pain acceptance, social support, kinesiophobia, and mood are not explained by demographic differences between men and women (e.g., age, birthplace).

    “In the present population, there were fewer men than women born in Sweden were as well as men being older.”
    “These demographic differences may or may not be clinical significant, while differences in how they react and behave while in pain, might have a clinical impact in rehabilitation.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Self-reported measures (e.g., activity level) accurately reflect the actual behavior or state they intend to measure.

    “Another limitation are the potential flaws that self-reports can contain.”
    “This study may have benefited from gathering observational measures, such as physical capacity, activity level, strength, sedentary-time, etc. in order to see how the self-reported activity level correlates with the factual one.”
4 of 4

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?

Statistics that don’t add up

Each reported p-value recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom.

  • Inconsistent p-value: t(1109) = 2.78, p = .007

    Minor

    The paper reports p = .007 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .006 (two-tailed). The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p = .007 · recomputed p = .006

1 of 1

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • Doesn’t add upt(1109) = 2.78reported p = .007 · recomputed p = .006

    “t(1109) = 2.78, p = .007”

  • Consistentt(1367) = -6.52reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t (1367) = -6.52, p < .001”

  • Consistentt(1212) = 3.31reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t (1212) = 3.31, p < .001”

3 of 3

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Physical-functioning p-value differs between results and table

    Major

    The results report p < .001 for physical functioning, whereas Table 3 reports p = .010 for that comparison.

  • Claim of significantly higher social support conflicts with Table 3

    Major

    The abstract and discussion identify higher social support among women as a significant result, but the MPI social-support scores are 4.20 for women and 4.15 for men, with p = .594.

  • Reported share receiving full sickness benefit conflicts with Table 1

    Minor

    The results say one third of participants received full sickness benefit, while Table 1 lists 13.9% receiving 100% sickness benefit and another 5.6% receiving time-limited 100% sickness benefit. Even combined, these categories total only 19.5%.

  • Reported physical-functioning mean difference is incorrect

    Minor

    Table 3 gives physical-functioning means of 49.47 for men and 48.38 for women, a difference of 1.09 rather than the reported 0.20.

    Reported 0.2 · recomputed 1.09

  • Table 3 stars p-values above its stated threshold

    Minor

    The table note defines an asterisk as p ≤ .001, but the mental-health result at p = .007 is starred. The physical-functioning and friends/acquaintances results at p = .010 are starred as well.

  • Work-status p-values are reversed between text and table

    Minor

    The text assigns p = .030 to full-time work and p = .035 to working to some extent. Table 1 assigns those values to the opposite categories.

  • Partner-relationship SD exceeds what its scale permits

    Minor

    On a scale bounded by 1 and 6, a sample with mean 3.70 cannot have an SD as high as 2.76; its maximum possible SD is about 2.49.

7 of 7

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 79 references

2 of the 79 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. BM King, 2010, Point: a call for proper usage of "gender" and "sex" in biomedical publications, Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol, 298, R1700, 10.1152/ajpregu.00694.2009 · DOI
  2. AS Zigmond, 1983, The hospital anxiety and depression scale, Acta psychiatrica scandinavica, 67, 361, 10.1111/j.1600-0447.1983.tb09716.x · DOI · Paper page
  3. M Sullivan, 2002, SF-36 H? lsoenk? t, Svensk Manual och Tolkningsguide(Swedish Manual and Interpretation Guide)
  4. AR Fugl-Meyer, 1987, The coping process after traumatic brain injury, Scandinavian journal of rehabilitation medicine Supplement, 17, 51
  5. DC Turk, 1987, Towards a comprehensive assessment of chronic pain patients, Behav Res Ther, 25, 237, 10.1016/0005-7967(87)90002-7 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–178 of 178

Metadata

Authors
Rovner, G. S., Sunnerhagen, K. S., Björkdahl, A., Gerdle, B., Börsbo, B., Johansson, F., & Gillanders, D.
Affiliations
  • Karolinska Institutet (SE)
  • University of Gothenburg (SE)
  • Linköping University (SE)
  • Danderyds sjukhus (SE)
  • University of Edinburgh (GB)
Corresponding author
Sunnerhagen, Katharina S.
Venue
PLOS ONE
Published
2017-04-25
Volume
12
Issue
4
Pages
e0175737
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2605316699
Cited by
179
References
79
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 34 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 4
FWCI
11.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • KTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Vårdalstiftelsen
  • AFA Försäkring
  • Sveriges Kommuner och Landsting
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
chronic pain, sex differences, pain acceptance, kinesiophobia, pain rehabilitation, anxiety, depression, quality of life, social support, activity level
MeSH terms
Adult, Affect, Anxiety, Behavior, Depression, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pain Measurement, Psychometrics, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Sex Characteristics, Sex Factors, Social Support, Chronic Pain

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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