| Title |
Recalled early life adversity and pain: the role of mood, sleep, optimism, and control
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Behavioral Medicine, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10865-018-9917-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ambika Mathur, Jennifer E. Graham-Engeland, Danica C. Slavish, Joshua M. Smyth, Richard B. Lipton, Mindy J. Katz, Martin J. Sliwinski |
| Abstract |
Early life adversity (ELA) has been associated with pain symptomatology in adulthood, but mechanisms and moderators of these associations are unclear. Using recall based and concurrently assessed self-report data, we examined associations between ELA, mood, sleep, and recent pain intensity and interference, and whether optimism and perceived control weakened these associations in a midlife community sample of diverse adults reporting some ELA. Controlling for demographic variables and BMI, higher levels of ELA were associated with more pain intensity and interference; greater sleep disturbance and negative mood accounted for these associations. When moderation was examined, only the path from sleep disturbance to pain interference was significantly attenuated for those with higher optimism and higher perceived control. These findings suggest that higher levels of ELA may link with pain in adulthood through poorer mood and sleep, and that resilience resources such as optimism and control may buffer some of these pathways. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 33% |
| Papua New Guinea | 1 | 17% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 17% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 1 | 17% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 50% |
| Scientists | 2 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 58 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 12 | 21% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 10% |
| Researcher | 3 | 5% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 5% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 9% |
| Unknown | 27 | 47% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 14 | 24% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 9% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 9% |
| Unknown | 27 | 47% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 42. 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 May 2019.
All research outputs
#845,440
of 23,043,346 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Behavioral Medicine
#79
of 1,080 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,155
of 331,236 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Behavioral Medicine
#2
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,043,346 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,080 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
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 331,236 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 8 of them.