↓ Skip to main content

Recalled early life adversity and pain: the role of mood, sleep, optimism, and control

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Behavioral Medicine, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#43 of 814)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
12 Mendeley
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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 12 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 25%
Unspecified 2 17%
Professor 2 17%
Student > Master 2 17%
Other 1 8%
Other 2 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 6 50%
Unspecified 3 25%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 8%
Arts and Humanities 1 8%
Neuroscience 1 8%
Other 0 0%

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
#400,430
of 13,366,062 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Behavioral Medicine
#43
of 814 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,713
of 270,640 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Behavioral Medicine
#3
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,366,062 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 814 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 270,640 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 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.