T4 Validation of the Burn Survivor Fear-avoidance Questionnaire
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Introduction According to the Fear-Avoidance (FA) Model, FA beliefs can lead to disability due to avoidance of activities expected to result in pain or further injury. Extensive research on the relationship of FA, pain, catastrophizing, and disability has been generated with patients suffering from chronic neck and back pain, but little research has been conducted with burn survivors. To address the need for a valid evaluation of FA in burn survivors, Langlois and colleagues developed, but did not validate, the Burn Survivor Fear-Avoidance Questionnaire (BSFAQ). Thus, the primary objective of this study was to investigate the construct validity of the BSFAQ among burn survivors. The secondary objective was to examine the relationship between FA and (i) pain intensity and (ii) catastrophizing at baseline (admission to rehab), 3 months and 6 months post-burn, and (iii) disability among burn survivors at 6 months post-burn. Methods A prospective mixed methods approach was used to examine the construct validity by comparing the quantitative scores of the BSFAQ to independently performed qualitative interviews of burn survivors (n=31) that explored their lived-experiences, to determine if the BSFAQ discriminated those who had, from those who did not have FA beliefs and behaviors. Data for the secondary objective, scores of burn survivors (n=51) pain intensity (measured by the Numeric Rating Scale), catastrophizing (measured by the Pain Catastrophizing Scale), and disability (measured by the Burn Specific Health Scale-brief), were collected through a retrospective chart review. Results For the primary objective, Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test results showed a statistically significant difference (p=0.015) between the BSFAQ scores of participants who were identified from the qualitative interviews as fear-avoidant compared to those who were identified as non-fear-avoidant. For the secondary objective, the Spearman correlation test results showed a moderate correlation between FA and (i) pain at baseline (r=0.466, p=0.002), a moderate correlation with (ii) catastrophizing thoughts over time (r=0.557, p=0.000; r=0.470, p=0.00; r=0.559, p=0.002 respectively at each time point), and a moderate correlation with (iii) disability at 6 months post-burn (r=-0.639, p=0.000). Conclusions These results support that the BSFAQ is able to discriminate which BS are experiencing fear-avoidant beliefs and behaviours. As has been reported in other patient populations, burn survivors who express FA are more likely to report higher levels of pain early during their recovery that correlates with elevated catastrophizing thoughts, which are maintained across time and ultimately results in higher self-reported disability, which is consistent with the FA model.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,009 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».