Laypersons' expectations of recovery and beliefs about whiplash injury: A cross‐cultural comparison between <scp>A</scp>ustralians and <scp>S</scp>ingaporeans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Beliefs and expectations are thought to influence outcome following whiplash injury. Studies have proposed a link between rates of chronic whiplash and laypersons' expectations about outcome following a motor vehicle accident. The prevalence of chronic whiplash is relatively high in Australia and apparently low in Singapore. This study's objectives were to compare laypersons' beliefs and expectations of recovery of whiplash injury in Brisbane and Singapore and to assess the effect of demographic factors on whiplash beliefs. METHODS: A cross-sectional study using online surveys was conducted on adult Internet users in Brisbane (Australia) and Singapore. The 14-item whiplash beliefs questionnaire (WBQ) was used to evaluate whiplash beliefs. Two additional items assessed expectations of recovery. Individual items of WBQ, WBQ score and expectations of recovery were analysed. Stratified analysis was performed to adjust for sampling bias due to quota sampling. RESULTS: A total of 402 participants from Singapore and 411 participants from Brisbane, Australia, completed the survey. While participants from Singapore demonstrated slightly more negative whiplash beliefs than participants from Brisbane [t(811) = -5.72; p < 0.0001], participants from both samples were similar in their expectations of quick recovery and return to normal activities following whiplash injury. Only gender had a significant effect on whiplash beliefs [estimated marginal means of WBQ score for men = 21.5; standard error (SE) = 0.20; women = 22.5; SE = 0.20; F(1,810) = 11.2; p = 0.001]. CONCLUSIONS: Laypersons' expectations of recovery and beliefs about whiplash injury in Brisbane and Singapore were generally similar and mostly positive. Our results demonstrate that cultural differences reflected by laypersons' beliefs may not reflect the differences in prevalence of chronic whiplash between countries.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".