Chronic Pain and Fatigue: Associations with Religion and Spirituality
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it