检索规则说明:AND代表“并且”;OR代表“或者”;NOT代表“不包含”;(注意必须大写,运算符两边需空一格)
检 索 范 例 :范例一: (K=图书馆学 OR K=情报学) AND A=范并思 范例二:J=计算机应用与软件 AND (U=C++ OR U=Basic) NOT M=Visual
机构地区:[1]福建师范大学应用心理学,福州350117 [2]长治医学院人文艺术传媒学院,长治046000
出 处:《中国疼痛医学杂志》2014年第9期650-654,共5页Chinese Journal of Pain Medicine
摘 要:目的:探讨在冷压痛实验条件下,疼痛自我效能和疼痛强度的关系以及疼痛应对策略的中介效应。方法:97名健康大学生完成疼痛自我效能量表,根据量表得分,分为高自我效能组与低自我效能组,冷加压测试后,记录疼痛强度以及应对策略的使用情况。结果:疼痛强度以及应对策略的采用在不同疼痛自我效能组上都存在显著差异。高自我效能组的个体更多地采用积极的应对策略而较少采用消极应对策略,同时对疼痛的强度感知也较低自我效能组的个体低。进一步分析,发现控制灾难化的消极应对策略后,疼痛自我效能对疼痛强度的作用消失。结论:疼痛应对策略尤其是消极应对策略对疼痛自我效能和疼痛强度的关系具有中介作用。Objective: To access whether the extent to which the influence of self-efficacy on pain intensity in the cold pressor test (CPT) is mediated by coping strategies. Methods: A total of 97 healthy students completed task-specific self-efficacy test and were assigned to the high self-efficacy group and the low self- efficacy group based on the scores. After the CPT, the pain intensity and the coping strategies were recorded and questioned. Results: There was significant difference between the two groups in the pain intensity and coping strategies. The high self-efficacy group adopted more cognitive coping strategies and predicted lower ratings of average pain intensity. After controlling for catastrophizing strategy, there was no difference between the two groups in the pain intensity. Conclusion: Path analyses indicated that associations between self-efficacy and pain intensity were fully mediated by the catastrophizing strategy.
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在链接到云南高校图书馆文献保障联盟下载...
云南高校图书馆联盟文献共享服务平台 版权所有©
您的IP:216.73.216.3