Staying active despite pain: Pain beliefs and experiences with activity‐related pain in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Maintain a level of activity and exercise is advice often given to patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain, but many patients find physical activity painful and consequently hesitate to move. Disability seems to be associated with fear of pain and there is a need to enhance our understanding of patients' beliefs and attitudes about how fear of pain affects physical activity and why some people are active despite their pain. The aim of this research was to understand thoughts and experiences about pain related to activity in patients with musculoskeletal disorders; the situations that promoted pain and if and how fear was expressed. METHODS: Five women and five men, recruited from a larger survey on fear, pain and physical activity were interviewed. The interviews were analysed by qualitative methods for themes about participants' pain and beliefs about pain. RESULTS: By interpreting signals from the body, patients calculated and planned their daily life to stay active despite pain and participate in their social lives. Pain was a signal with diverse meanings which, with the influence of time, seemed to change from a sign of danger to a reminder to moderate their level of activity. By experimenting with different activities, patients learned how to gradually remain or become physically active. CONCLUSION: Patients strived to stay active despite pain. The interpretation of pain changed over time, from a threatening signal to a signal with diverse meanings. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The findings provide insights that may improve the educational rehabilitation of patients with musculoskeletal pain.
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 | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".