| 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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
| Australia | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 90 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 1% |
| Norway | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 88 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 21 | 23% |
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 17% |
| Researcher | 5 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 12 | 13% |
| Unknown | 16 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 45 | 50% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 7% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 3% |
| Sports and Recreations | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 6 | 7% |
| Unknown | 20 | 22% |
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 22 June 2016.
All research outputs
#15,470,109
of 24,527,525 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Behavioral Medicine
#820
of 1,136 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,371
of 346,471 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Behavioral Medicine
#11
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,527,525 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 1,136 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.7. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 346,471 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.