Alexandra Ferreira-Valente

Dr. Alexandra Ferreira-Valente

William James Center for Research, ISPA, Instituto Universitário, Lisbon, Portugal
orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

18Years (2009-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 October 2011 in Pain
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
AFAlexandra Ferreira-Valente
Alexandra Ferreira-Valente
JPJose Luis Pais-Rbeiro
Jose Luis Pais-Rbeiro
MJMark P. Jensen
Mark P. Jensen
The Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), Verbal Rating Scale (VRS), and the Faces Pain Scale-Revised (FPS-R) are among the most commonly used measures of pain intensity in clinical and research settings. Although evidence supports their validity as measures of pain intensity, few studies have compared them with respect to the critical validity criteria of responsivity, and no experiment has directly compared all 4 measures in the same study. The current study compared the relative validity of VAS, NRS, VRS, and FPS-R for detecting differences in painful stimulus intensity and differences between men and women in response to experimentally induced pain. One hundred twenty-seven subjects underwent four 20-second cold pressor trials with temperature order counterbalanced across 1°C, 3°C, 5°C, and 7°C and rated pain intensity using all 4 scales. Results showed statistically significant differences in pain intensity between temperatures for each scale, with lower temperatures resulting in higher pain intensity. The order of responsivity was as follows: NRS, VAS, VRS, and FPS-R. However, there were relatively small differences in the responsivity between scales. A statistically significant sex main effect was also found for the NRS, VRS, and FPS-R. The findings are consistent with previous studies supporting the validity of each scale. The most support emerged for the NRS as being both (1) most responsive and (2) able to detect sex differences in pain intensity. The results also provide support for the validity of the scales for use in Portuguese samples.

27 July 2016 in Advances in Health Sciences Education
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
AFAlexandra Ferreira-Valente
Alexandra Ferreira-Valente
JMJoana S. Monteiro
Joana S. Monteiro
RBRita M. Barbosa
Rita M. Barbosa
ASAna Salgueira
Ana Salgueira
PCPatrício Costa
Patrício Costa
MCManuel João Costa
Manuel João Costa

11 February 2020 in Pain Medicine
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
SSSaurab Sharma
Saurab Sharma
AFAlexandra Ferreira-Valente
Alexandra Ferreira-Valente
AWAmanda C de C. Williams
Amanda C de C. Williams
JAJ Haxby Abbott
J Haxby Abbott
JPJose Luis Pais-Rbeiro
Jose Luis Pais-Rbeiro
MJMark P Jensen
Mark P Jensen
Objective: To evaluate the extent to which pain-related beliefs, appraisals, coping, and catastrophizing differ between countries, language groups, and country economy.Design: Systematic review.Methods: Two independent reviewers searched 15 databases without restriction for date or language of publication. Studies comparing pain beliefs/appraisals, coping, or catastrophizing across two or more countries or language groups in adults with chronic pain (pain for longer than three months) were included. Two independent reviewers extracted data and performed the quality appraisal. Study quality was rated as low, moderate, or high using a 10-item modified STROBE checklist. Effect sizes were reported as small (0.20–0.49), medium (0.50–0.79), or large (≥0.80).Results: We retrieved 1,365 articles, read 42 potential full texts, and included 10 (four moderate-quality, six low-quality) studies. A total of 6,797 adults with chronic pain (33% with chronic low back pain) were included from 16 countries. Meta-analysis was not performed because of heterogeneity in the studies. A total of 103 effect sizes were computed for individual studies, some of which indicated between-country differences in pain beliefs, coping, and catastrophizing. Of these, the majority of effect sizes for pain beliefs/appraisal (60%; eight large, eight medium, and eight small), for coping (60%; seven large, 11 medium, and 16 small), and for catastrophizing (50%; two medium, one small) evidenced statistically significant between-country differences, although study quality was low to moderate.Conclusions: In 50% or more of the studies, mean scores in the measures of pain beliefs and appraisals, coping responses, and catastrophizing were significantly different between people from different countries.

1 August 2014 in The Clinical Journal of Pain
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
AFAlexandra Ferreira-Valente
Alexandra Ferreira-Valente
JPJose Luis Pais-Rbeiro
Jose Luis Pais-Rbeiro
MJMark P. Jensen
Mark P. Jensen
Current models of chronic pain recognize that psychosocial factors influence pain and the effects of pain on daily life. The role of such factors has been widely studied on English-speaking individuals with chronic pain. It is possible that the associations between such factors and adjustment may be influenced by culture. This study sought to evaluate the importance of coping responses, self-efficacy beliefs, and social support to adjust to chronic pain in a sample of Portuguese patients, and discuss the findings with respect to their similarities and differences from findings of studies on English-speaking individuals. Measures of pain intensity and interference, physical and psychological functioning, coping responses, self-efficacy, and satisfaction with social support were administered to a sample of 324 Portuguese patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Univariate and multivariate analyses were computed. Findings were interpreted with respect to those from similar studies using English-speaking individuals. Coping responses and perceived social support were significantly associated with pain interference and both physical and psychological functioning; self-efficacy beliefs were significantly associated with all criterion variables. All coping responses, except for task persistence, were positively associated with pain interference and negatively associated with physical and psychological functioning, with the strongest associations found for catastrophizing, praying/hoping, guarding, resting, asking for assistance, and relaxation. The findings provide support for the importance of the psychosocial factors studied in terms of adjustment to chronic pain in Portuguese patients, and also suggest the possibility of some differences in the role of these factors due to culture.

18 September 2019 in Journal of Religion and Health
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
AFAlexandra Ferreira-Valente
Alexandra Ferreira-Valente
SSSaurab Sharmam
Saurab Sharmam
STSandra Torres
Sandra Torres
ZSZachary Smothers
Zachary Smothers
JPJose Luis Pais-Rbeiro
Jose Luis Pais-Rbeiro
MJMark P. Jensen
Mark P. Jensen
This systematic review examined the extent to which measures of religiosity/spirituality (R/S): (1) are associated with pain, function, pain-related beliefs (beliefs), coping responses, and catastrophizing in people with chronic pain; and (2) moderate the association between beliefs, coping and catastrophizing, and pain and function. Experimental and observational studies examining at least one of these research questions in adults with chronic pain were eligible. Two reviewers independently performed eligibility screening, data extraction, and quality assessment. Twenty studies were included. Most studies focused on the association between R/S and pain or function. When significant associations emerged, those between R/S and psychological function were weak to strong and positive; those between religious/spiritual well-being and pain and physical dysfunction were negative, but weak. Few studies examined the associations between R/S and beliefs/coping/catastrophizing; none examined the moderation role of R/S. The findings suggest that R/S is associated with pain and psychological function in people with chronic pain, and that viewing oneself as being “spiritual,” regardless of religion, may contribute to positive psychological adjustment. More research is needed to determine the reliability of this finding. PROSPERO registry CRD42018088803.

19 September 2016 in BMC Medical Education
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
AFAlexandra Ferreira-Valente
Alexandra Ferreira-Valente
PCPatrício Costa
Patrício Costa
MEMarta Elorduy
Marta Elorduy
MVMontserrat Virumbrales
Montserrat Virumbrales
MCManuel João Costa
Manuel João Costa
JPJorge Palés
Jorge Palés
Empathy is a key aspect of the physician-patient interactions. The Jefferson Scale of Empathy (JSE) is one of the most used empathy measures of medical students. The development of cross-cultural empathy studies depends on valid and reliable translations of the JSE. This study sought to: (1) adapt and assess the psychometric properties in Spanish students of the Spanish JSE validated in Mexican students; (2) test a second order latent factor model. The Spanish JSE was adapted from the Spanish JSE-S, resulting in a final version of the measure. A non-probabilistic sample of 1104 medical students of two Spanish medical schools completed a socio-demographic and the Spanish JSE-S. Descriptive statistics, along with a confirmatory factor analysis, the average variance extracted (AVE), Cronbach’s alphas and composite reliability (CR) coefficients were computed. An independent samples t-test was performed to access sex differences. The Spanish JSE-S demonstrated acceptable to good sensitivity (individual items – except for item 2 – and JSE-S total score: −2.72 < Sk < 0.35 and −0.77 < Ku < 7.85), convergent validity (AVE: between 0.28 and 0.45) and reliability (Cronbach’s alphas: between 0.62 and 0.78; CR: between 0.62 and 0.87). The confirmatory factor analysis supported the three-factor solution and the second order latent factor model. The findings provide support for the sensitivity, construct validity and reliability of the adapted Spanish JSE-S with Spanish medical students. Data confirm the hypothesized second order latent factor model. This version may be useful in future research examining empathy in Spanish medical students, as well as in cross-cultural studies.