Problems in Functioning in Patients with Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain Admitted for Multidisciplinary Rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little is known about the extent to which improvements in various problem areas are attained after multidisciplinary rehabilitation program in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMP). AIM: To describe the pre- and postcontents of problems in functioning from the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) in terms of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) in CMP patients following a 15-week rehabilitation program. METHODS: In all patients admitted to a rehabilitation program, the COPM was administered at admission and discharge. The problems identified at admission were linked to ICF chapters using an established linking procedure. Changes of COPM Performance/Satisfaction scores (1-10; low-high) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated, and effect sizes (ESs) were computed. RESULTS: In total, 165 patients were included with a mean age of 44.1 (SD 12.9) years; among them, 143 (87%) were women. At admission, totally 801 problems were identified and linked to 706 unique ICF categories: 83 (12%) were related to the ICF component "Body Functions" and 621 (88%) to "Activities and Participation". ICF chapters "d4 Mobility" (124, 18%) and "d9 Community social and civic life" (143, 20%) were most frequently identified. The median changes of the COPM total scores for Performance and Satisfaction were 2.1 (95% CI 1.9 to 2.3, ES: 1.75) and 3.2 (95% CI 2.9 to 3.4, ES: 2.38). CONCLUSION: A 15-week multidisciplinary treatment program showed that most problems were seen within chapters Mobility and Community life of the ICF. The program led to significant improvements of patient reported problems, the magnitude of which was similar for all different problem areas.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".