Do beliefs, coping, and catastrophizing independently predict functioning in patients with chronic pain?

Pain. 2000 Mar;85(1-2):115-25. doi: 10.1016/s0304-3959(99)00259-6.

Abstract

Physical and psychosocial disability in patients with chronic pain have been shown to be associated with patients' pain-related beliefs, tendency to catastrophize, and pain coping strategy use. However, little is known about whether beliefs, catastrophizing, and coping strategies are independently associated with patient adjustment. Identification of specific beliefs, cognitive responses, and coping strategies strongly and independently associated with physical and psychosocial functioning would suggest the importance of targeting those variables for modification in treatment. One hundred sixty-nine patients entering a multidisciplinary pain treatment program completed measures of pain, beliefs, coping, catastrophizing, physical disability, and depression. Principal components analyses were used to create belief and coping components, which were then entered in multiple regression analyses predicting physical disability and depression. Belief scores significantly and independently predicted both physical disability and depression, after controlling for age, sex, pain intensity, catastrophizing, and coping. Coping scores significantly and independently predicted physical disability, but not depression, whereas catastrophizing independently predicted depression, but not physical disability. These findings suggest the importance of targeting specific pain-related beliefs and coping strategies, as well as catastrophizing, for modification in the treatment of patients with chronic pain.

Publication types

  • Clinical Trial
  • Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.

MeSH terms

  • Adaptation, Psychological / physiology*
  • Adult
  • Aged
  • Attitude
  • Chronic Disease
  • Culture*
  • Depression / psychology
  • Disability Evaluation
  • Female
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Middle Aged
  • Pain / psychology*
  • Pain Measurement
  • Predictive Value of Tests