Unravelling nocebo effect: the mediating effect of anxiety between anticipation and pain at wound dressing change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to examine the mediating effect of anxiety in the relationship between anticipation and pain in people with chronic wounds. BACKGROUND: Pain is common in people with chronic wounds. Anticipation or negative expectation of discomfort has been shown to have an augmenting effect on pain; also known as nocebo hyperalgesia. DESIGN: This was a cross-sectional study with repeated measures. METHODS: Prior to dressing change, anticipatory pain level was evaluated by a 11-point numerical rating scale and anxiety by the Six-items State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-6). During wound dressing changes, pain was measured before dressing removal, at dressing removal, at cleansing and dressing application using the numerical scale. RESULTS: Analysis was completed based on the data from a convenience sample of 96 patients. Participants reported more pain at cleansing and dressing removal than baseline. High levels of anticipation, anxiety and pain at dressing change for wounds were related to heavy exudate and wound that were covered with necrotic tissue. Finally, the relationship between anticipation and pain perception was mediated by anxiety. CONCLUSION: Anticipation of pain triggers anxiety that can lead to increased pain. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: There is a need to incorporate evaluation of anxiety and personal expectations as part of comprehensive pain assessment. Clinicians should be aware of the impact of emotions and anticipation on overall pain experience.
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 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 | 0.058 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".