↓ Skip to main content

The “self” in pain: the role of psychological inflexibility in chronic pain adjustment

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Behavioral Medicine, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (58th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
Title
The “self” in pain: the role of psychological inflexibility in chronic pain adjustment
Published in
Journal of Behavioral Medicine, June 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10865-016-9750-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Silvia Sze Wai Kwok, Esther Chin Chi Chan, Phoon Ping Chen, Barbara Chuen Yee Lo

Abstract

Self-discrepancy occurs when a person feels the failure to fulfill one's hopes or responsibilities. Although self-discrepancy has been widely examined to elucidate patients' chronic pain adjustment, the underlying mechanism is unclear. The present study proposes that the effect of self-discrepancy on pain outcomes is accounted for by psychological inflexibility, which involves the psychological processes that guide behaviors in the pursuit of goals and values. One-hundred patients with chronic pain were recruited from a public hospital. They were invited to participate in a semi-structured interview regarding their self-discrepancy and complete self-reported questionnaires regarding their psychological inflexibility and pain outcomes. The results confirmed that psychological inflexibility partly accounts for the variance observed between self-discrepancy and pain outcomes. The current study provides additional insight into the mechanism underpinning the impact of self-discrepancy on patients' pain adjustment and offers clinical implications regarding the use of acceptance commitment therapy for chronic pain management.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 2%
Norway 1 2%
Unknown 44 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 33%
Student > Bachelor 10 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 20%
Unspecified 4 9%
Researcher 3 7%
Other 5 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 22 48%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 15%
Unspecified 6 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 11%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Other 4 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 22 June 2016.
All research outputs
#6,602,330
of 12,316,253 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Behavioral Medicine
#453
of 736 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,064
of 275,376 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Behavioral Medicine
#15
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,316,253 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 736 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. 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 275,376 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.