ArticleRheumatology advances in practice2025
Validation of the Coping with Health Injuries and Problems questionnaire in a longitudinal cohort with recent-onset RA.
Article in Rheumatology advances in practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To validate the Coping with Health Injuries and Problems (CHIP) questionnaire in a prospective cohort of early RA patients. Methods: Between 2006 and 2022, newly diagnosed RA patients self-administered CHIP at baseline and at follow-up visits. The original CHIP comprises four subscales (Distraction, Palliative, Instrumental, Emotional preoccupation), each containing eight items (scores 8 to 40). At inclusion and again after more than 2 years of follow-up, internal consistency was assessed with Cronbach's alpha, factor structure with exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses (EFA, CFA), and sensitivity to change with mixed linear models with repeated measures. Results: In 381 early RA patients, the means (SD) were 23.75 (6.52) for Distraction, 23.55 (6.11) for Palliative, 31.38 (5.41) for Instrumental and 25.11 (7.89) for Emotional preoccupation, values comparable to the literature only available in back pain patients. In 253 of the 381 patients followed up into established RA, all subscales except Distraction had decreased significantly between inclusion and follow-up. Internal consistency was similar in established and early RA (Cronbach's alphas: 0.77 to 0.89 Conclusion: The original CHIP possesses good psychometric properties to describe individual coping styles in both early and established RA. Coping in RA might be better characterized using five rather than four subscales, with the additional subscale addressing treatment adherence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.