A Longitudinal Investigation of Pain-related Social Support Preferences in a Chronic Pain Treatment Sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Chronic pain patients' pain-related social support preferences have received little clinical or research attention. However, recent research utilizing the Pain Response Preference Questionnaire (PRPQ) has indicated that such preferences are related to pain-related disability. This study investigated whether pain-related social support preferences: (1) were related to disability levels, (2) predicted changes in pain and disability following a group-based treatment program, and (3) changed from pretreatment to posttreatment. METHODS: At pretreatment and posttreatment, chronic pain patients (N=45) participating in a self-management psychoeducation program completed the PRPQ and measures of pain severity and disability. RESULTS: A multiple regression analysis indicated that at pretreatment the Solicitude scale of the PRPQ was positively associated with disability, and that this association was moderated by the other 2 PRPQ scales (Activity Direction and Suppression). The PRPQ scales did not predict changes in pain or disability and there were no significant changes in the PRPQ scale scores. However, participants did not respond to the Solicitude scale in a consistent manner from pretreatment to posttreatment (51.1% decreased, 35.5% increased, and 13.3% remained the same). These changes were unrelated to changes in pain or disability. DISCUSSION: Additional research aimed at identifying the processes underlying the association between pain-related support preferences and disability is warranted. Given the potentially important role that a desire for solicitous support may play in shaping the social context of pain, understanding the unexpected changes in Solicitude scale scores found in the present study may be particularly important for improving self-management treatments for chronic pain.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".