Represión emocional y estrategias de afrontamiento en dolor crónico oncológico
Bibliographic record
Abstract
El objetivo fundamental de esta investigacion es abordar el estudio del dolor cronico oncologico den tro del Modelo Procesual del Estres (Lazarus y Folkman, 1986) y estudiar la relacion entre rpresion emocional, estrategias de afrontamiento y ni vel de funcionamiento diario en una muestra de pacientes con cancer (N=101). Los instrumentos de evaluacion utilizados son: el «Courtauld Emotional Control Scale» (CECS), el «Vanderbilt Pain Mana gement Inventory» (VPMI), el «Cuestionario de dolor de McGill» (MPQ) y la Escala de Actividad del «Multidimensional Pain In ventory» (MPI). Los resultados obtenidos a tr aves de un analisis de ecuaciones estructurales mediante el pr ograma LISREL 8.20, indican que la represion emocional influye sobre el dolor a tr aves de las estr ategias activas. Tambien se obtiene una relacion positi va entre estr ategias pasivas y dolor y una relacion ne gativa entre estr ategias activas y dolor, hallandose una relacion incompatible entre ambos tipos de estr ategias de afronta miento. Emotional repression and coping strategies in cancer chronic pain. Differences in coping styles and strategies have been hypothesised to explain some of the variation in adaptation among chronic pain patients. Taking as a framework Lazarus and Folkman’s (1986) process-centred theory of stress and coping, the present study investigated the relation of emotional r epression and coping str ategies to pain and daily functioning in a g roup of cancer patients. One hundred and one subjects completed the Cour tauld Emotional Control Scale (CECS), the Vanderbilt Pain Management Inventory (VPMI), the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ) and the Activity scale of the Multidimensional Pain In ventory (MPI). Results of the LISREL 8.20 structural equation modelling indicated that: 1) emotional r epression significantly influenced on pain through acti ve coping, 2) acti ve coping was significantly associated with reports of less pain while passi ve coping was associated with r eports of greater pain, and 3) there was an inverse relationship between acti ve and passive coping.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".