MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Laypersons' expectations of recovery and beliefs about whiplash injury: A cross‐cultural comparison between <scp>A</scp>ustralians and <scp>S</scp>ingaporeans

2012· article· en· W1908303313 on OpenAlexaff
Tsan Sheng Ng, Geoff Bostick, Ashley Pedler, Rachelle Buchbinder, Bill Vicenzino, Michele Sterling

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Pain · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWhiplashMedicineInjury preventionPsychologyClinical psychologyHuman factors and ergonomicsPoison controlPhysical therapyMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.285 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of PainSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207