Cited by 259Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationPain Management and TreatmentPediatric Pain Management Techniques

Understanding pain catastrophizing: Putting pieces together

Open access
Petrini, Laura, Arendt-Nielsen, Lars·2020·Frontiers in Psychology

Abstract

The present narrative review addresses issues concerning the defining criteria and conceptual underpinnings of pain catastrophizing. To date, the concept of pain catastrophizing has been extensively used in many clinical and experimental contexts and it is considered as one of the most important psychological correlate of pain chronicity and disability. Although its extensive use, we are still facing important problems related to its defining criteria and conceptual understanding. At present, there is no general theoretical agreement of what catastrophizing really is. The lack of a consensus on its definition and conceptual issues has important consequences on the choice of the pain management approaches, defining and identifying problems, and promoting novel research. Clinical and research work in absence of a common theoretical ground is often trivial. It is very surprising that clinical and experimental work has grown extensively in the past years, without a common ground in the form of a clear definition of pain catastrophizing and overview of its conceptual basis. Improving the efficacy and efficiency of pan catastrophizing related treatments requires an understanding of the theoretical construct. So far, most interventions have only demonstrated modest effects in reducing pain catastrophizing. Therefore, clarifying the construct may be an important precursor for developing more targeted and effective interventions, thereby easing some of the burden related to this aspect of pain. In our review, we have extracted and de-constructed common elements that emerge from different theoretical models with the aim to understand the concept of catastrophizing, which components can be modulated by psychological interventions, and the general role in pain processing. The analysis of the literature has indicated essential key elements to explain pain catastrophizing: emotional regulation, catastrophic worry (as repetitive negative thinking), rumination, behavioral inhibition and behavioral activation (BIS/BAS) systems, and interoceptive sensitivity. The present paper attempts to integrate these key elements with the aim to re-compose and unify the concept within a modern biopsychosocial interpretation of catastrophizing.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.603420

Cites

174 of 174 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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 thoughts about pain are associated with increased pain intensity and severity, disability, emotional distress, healthcare utilization, pain medication use, and poorer outcomes following surgery.

    “A recent review of the literature has demonstrated that catastrophizing thoughts about pain are associated with increased pain intensity and severity, disability, emotional distress, healthcare utilization, pain medication use, and poorer outcomes following surgery (Petrini & Arendt-Nielsen, 2020).”

    From Increasing Occupational Engagement by Addressing Psychosocial and Occupational Factors of Chronic Pain: A Case Report. (2022) · cites this paper as Petrini & Arendt-Nielsen, 2020

    In “Setting the Scene” (page not specified), the review links pain catastrophizing with greater pain intensity and severity, emotional distress, healthcare utilization, disability, and worse outcomes after surgery. The passage does not mention increased pain medication use, so that part of the attributed claim is unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.89)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 177 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. De Pascalis V. Cozzuto G. Caprara G. V. Alessandri G. (2013). Relations among EEG-alpha asymmetry, BIS/BAS, and dispositional optimism. Biol. Psychol. 94 198– 209. 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2013.05.016 23735707 · DOI
  2. Eccleston C. Fisher E. A. Vervoort T. Crombez G. (2012). Worry and catastrophizing about pain in youth: a reappraisal. Pain 153 1560– 1562. 10.1016/j.pain.2012.02.039 22516589 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Gray J. A. McNaughton N. (2000). The Neuropsychology of Anxiety: An Enquiry Into the Functions of the Septo-Hippocampal System. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  4. Gross J. J. Thompson R. A. (2007). “ Emotion regulation: conceptual foundations,” in Handbook of Emotion Regulation, ed. Gross J. J. (New York, NY: The Guilford Press), 3– 24.
  5. Kendall P. C. Ingram R. (1987). “ The future for cognitive assessment of anxiety: let’s get specific,” in Anxiety and Stress Disorders: Cognitive-Behavioral Assessment and Treatment, eds Michelson L. Ascher L. M. (New York, NY: Guilford Press), 89– 104.
  6. Lazarus R. S. Folkman S. (1984). Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. New York: Springer Publishing Company
  7. Nijs J. Putte K. V. D. Louckx F. Truijen S. Meirleir K. D. (2008). Exercise performance and chronic pain in chronic fatigue syndrome: the role of pain catastrophizing. Pain Med. 9 1164– 1172. 10.1111/j.1526-4637.2007.00368.x 19086101 · DOI
  8. Sansone R. A. Sansone L. A. (2012). Rumination: relationships with physical health. Innov. Clin. Neurosci. 9 29– 34. 22468242 PMC3312901

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Petrini, L., & Arendt-Nielsen, L.
Affiliations
Aalborg University (DK)
Corresponding author
Petrini, Laura
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Published
2020-12-16
Volume
11
Pages
603420-603420
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3113360819
Cited by
259
References
177
Citations by year
2026: 41 · 2025: 72 · 2024: 65 · 2023: 43 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 10
FWCI
2.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • VBN Forskningsportal (Aalborg Universitet) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Aalborg Universitet
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › 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
pain catastrophizing, chronic pain, pain-related disability, conceptual definitions, emotion regulation, rumination, behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, interoceptive sensitivity, biopsychosocial model, pain processing, psychological intervention

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