Sex Differences in Psychological Response to Pain in Patients With Fibromyalgia Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To examine whether men and women with fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) differ with respect to pain severity and functioning, pain-related beliefs, or pain-related coping. We hypothesized no significant sex differences in measures of pain and functioning, but that we would observe differences between men and women in how they view and how they cope with FMS-related pain. METHODS: A total of 747 women and 48 men with FMS who attended a multidisciplinary treatment program completed the study measures. Analyses of covariance were used to examine sex differences in the study measures, with a P-value of ≤0.01 and at least a moderate effect size (Cohen d≥0.5) required for a difference to be deemed statistically significant. RESULTS: Men and women did not differ on demographic measures except for their age, with the men in our sample being significantly younger than the women. Consistent with the study hypothesis, the results revealed no sex differences in the measures of pain and functioning. For pain-related beliefs, men were more likely to view pain as reflecting harm, and they were also more likely than women to use activity avoidance as a pain-coping strategy. DISCUSSION: The study findings suggest that women and men with FMS may think about and cope with pain somewhat differently, and may therefore benefit from different types of psychosocial pain intervention.
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 | 0.022 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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; 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".