↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Individual and dyadic coping in chronic pain patients

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Pain Research, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
Title
Individual and dyadic coping in chronic pain patients
Published in
Journal of Pain Research, March 2017
DOI 10.2147/jpr.s128871
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrea Burri, Michèle Blank Gebre, Guy Bodenmann

Abstract

The purpose of the current cross-sectional study was to test the associations between individual coping responses to pain, dyadic coping, and perceived social support, with a number of pain outcomes, including pain intensity, functional disability, and pain adjustment, in a sample of N = 43 patients suffering from chronic pain in Switzerland. In contrast to previous research, we were interested not only in specific pain coping but also in more general stress coping strategies and their potential influence on pain outcomes. Analyses were performed using correlation and regression analyses. "Praying and hoping" turned out to be an independent predictor of higher pain intensity and higher anxiety levels, whereas both "coping self-instructions" and "diverting attention" were associated with higher well-being, less feelings of helplessness, and less depression and anxiety. We further found a link between "focusing on and venting emotions" and "worse pain adjustment". No significant relationship between dyadic coping and social support with any of our pain outcomes could be observed. Overall, our results indicate that individual coping strategies outweigh the effects of social support and dyadic coping on pain-related outcomes and pain adjustment. However, results need to be interpreted with caution given the small sample size.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 19%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 13%
Student > Bachelor 7 13%
Student > Master 5 9%
Student > Postgraduate 2 4%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 19 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 20 38%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Environmental Science 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 18 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 March 2017.
All research outputs
#16,188,873
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pain Research
#1,170
of 1,969 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,062
of 324,971 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pain Research
#37
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,969 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.3. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 324,971 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.