Cognitive factors and the experience of pain and suffering in older persons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cognitive factors are thought to play an important mediational role between pain and consequent levels of suffering, yet there has been little investigation of these issues in older chronic pain patients. The present study sought to examine the reliability and validity of the Pain Locus of Control (PLOC) scale when used with older patients, to explore age differences in PLOC orientation, and examine the relationship between cognitive beliefs and levels of pain and suffering. 169 older patients attending a pain management clinic completed a comprehensive psychometric battery prior to admission. Principal components analysis replicated the original factor structure of the PLOC previously identified in young adult samples, suggesting that older patients adopt the same underlying constructs of control. The internal item consistency of the 36 item scale was shown to be very good to excellent. Older adults endorsed a higher chance locus of control, but this orientation was amenable to change following a cognitive-behavioural treatment program. PLOC orientation was related to use of coping strategies, levels of pain and depression, functional and psychosocial impact as well as compliance with treatment protocols. Stepwise regression analysis revealed that self perceived interference from pain and internal PLOC were the best predictors of depressive symptoms in older adults. In combination, these findings suggest that cognitive factors are of importance in older chronic pain patients and extend the relevance of cognitive-behavioural models of pain across the entire adult age spectrum.
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 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".