↓ Skip to main content

Relationships between catastrophic thought, bodily sensations and physical symptoms

Overview of attention for article published in BioPsychoSocial Medicine, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#38 of 322)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
10 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Relationships between catastrophic thought, bodily sensations and physical symptoms
Published in
BioPsychoSocial Medicine, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13030-017-0110-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hiroshi Seto, Mutsuhiro Nakao

Abstract

Researchers have recently begun to seek cognitive explanations for physical symptoms with no obvious biological cause. Concepts such as somatization, somatosensory amplification, and somatosensory catastrophizing have been invoked to explain these phenomena. Somatosensory amplification occurs when these bodily sensations become stronger and more painful. Somatosensory catastrophizing is the tendency to attribute these bodily sensations to unbearable functional modulation or as signs of serious illness. This causes the sufferer to pay excessive attention to these physical sensations. However, there is no scale for evaluating somatosensory catastrophizing, and there are no standard diagnostic criteria. There were two objectives for this study: to develop a scale for evaluating somatosensory catastrophizing and to investigate relationships between somatosensory amplification, somatosensory catastrophizing, and physical symptoms. In the first part of this study, in which we developed the scale, there were 231 student participants with an average age of 20.1 years. Of these, 57% of the participants were female. In the second part of the study, there were two groups of participants. The first group consisted of 158 non-patient subjects, 56% of whom were female, with an average age of 20.2 years. There were 33 outpatients receiving treatment for somatoform disorders in the second group. The average age of these participants, of whom 67% were female, was 48.8 years. The second part of the study was conducted using standardized self-rating questionnaires to assess somatosensory amplification and catastrophizing. We developed a 27-item scale, which we have called the Somatosensory catastrophizing scale (SSCS). The SSCS assesses five key areas, and our analysis confirmed it to be valid and highly reliable. The scale identified that the patient group from the second part of the study scored more highly than the control group for both somatosensory amplification and catastrophizing. Additionally, the results of covariance structure analyses revealed a significant causal relationship of the form "somatosensory amplifcation" via "somatosensory catastrophizing" to "physical symptoms". This relationship held in both groups of participants. The key difference between the patient and non-patient groups was that somatosensory catastrophizing had a greater impact on the physical symptoms of the participants in the patient group. In this study, we developed the SSCS, which enables us to measure somatosensory catastrophizing empirically. We then clarified the relationship between somatosensory amplification, somatosensory catastrophizing, and physical symptoms. In the future, we expect to be able to apply our new understanding to developing intervention techniques to mitigate the physical symptoms caused by somatosensory catastrophizing.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 24%
Other 4 12%
Student > Postgraduate 3 9%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Researcher 2 6%
Other 5 15%
Unknown 10 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 10 29%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Arts and Humanities 1 3%
Unspecified 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 12 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 27 October 2021.
All research outputs
#1,762,325
of 25,320,147 outputs
Outputs from BioPsychoSocial Medicine
#38
of 322 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,643
of 339,001 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BioPsychoSocial Medicine
#2
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,320,147 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 322 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 339,001 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 7 of them.