Chronic Pain and Fatigue: Associations with Religion and Spirituality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Conditions with chronic, non-life-threatening pain and fatigue remain a challenge to treat, and are associated with high health care use. Understanding psychological and psychosocial contributing and coping factors, and working with patients to modify them, is one goal of management. An individual's spirituality and/or religion may be one such factor that can influence the experience of chronic pain or fatigue. METHODS: The Canadian Community Health Survey (2002) obtained data from 37,000 individuals 15 years of age or older. From these data, four conditions with chronic pain and fatigue were analyzed together -- fibromyalgia, back pain, migraine headaches and chronic fatigue syndrome. Additional data from the survey were used to determine how religion and spirituality affect psychological well-being, as well as the use of various coping methods. RESULTS: Religious persons were less likely to have chronic pain and fatigue, while those who were spiritual but not affiliated with regular worship attendance were more likely to have those conditions. Individuals with chronic pain and fatigue were more likely to use prayer and seek spiritual support as a coping method than the general population. Furthermore, chronic pain and fatigue sufferers who were both religious and spiritual were more likely to have better psychological well-being and use positive coping strategies. INTERPRETATION: Consideration of an individual's spirituality and/or religion, and how it may be used in coping may be an additional component to the overall management of chronic pain and fatigue.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".