Why do you think you still have pain? Individuals’ beliefs on the biopsychosocial factors that contribute to their chronic musculoskeletal pain: a qualitative exploration
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMP) is complex with many biopsychosocial factors that contribute to its development. Existing research has established individuals’ beliefs on the biological factors that contribute to CMP, but not psychosocial factors. The aim of this study was to determine individuals’ beliefs on the biopsychosocial factors that contribute to their CMP, with specific focus on beliefs about psychosocial contributors. METHODS: A preliminary exploration using interpretative phenomenological analysis methods is reported according to the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research. Adults with CMP were recruited from the general public. Four stages of data analysis were undertaken to identify superordinate and subthemes. RESULTS: In-depth analysis of n = 6 participants’ interviews identified six superordinate themes. Participants with higher disability from their CMP described psychological factors including negative psychological experiences (distress, loss of self-identity, negative thoughts/emotions, and stress), dissatisfaction with healthcare (let down, fobbed off, lack of empathy, lack of trust), and maladaptive coping strategies (catastrophisation, avoidance, external locus of control), and did not believe these contributed to their CMP. Participants with lower disability from their CMP described positive psychological experiences (solution focussed coping, positive attitudes) and believed these contributed to their CMP by reducing its severity. Participants described social factors including historical activities (work, sport, exercise) and believed these contributed to CMP via the perceived impact of activity causing musculoskeletal structural degeneration or injury. Participants believed biological factors such as structural changes (injury, degeneration) were the main cause of the development and persistence of their CMP. CONCLUSION: Individuals with higher disability and negative psychological experiences did not believe these were contributory to their CMP, while those with lower disability and positive psychological experiences believed these do contribute to CMP by reducing its severity. Biological factors such as musculoskeletal structural changes were considered the main cause of CMP. Social factors were believed to contribute to CMP through the perceived impact of physical activity on structural changes. Beliefs are not in keeping with contemporary understandings of CMP which may limit engagement with interventions such as exercise or psychosocial therapies.
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 | 0,012 | 0,011 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,007 | 0,008 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
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 ».