Psychosocial mechanisms of the pain and quality of life relationship for chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) is a prevalent, chronic pelvic pain condition largely unresponsive to medical interventions. Psychosocial risk factors are associated with poor outcomes in CP/CPPS, but have not been examined for their intervening roles between pain and reduced quality of life (QoL). This study aimed to determine if psychosocial risk factors (i.e., patient coping and catastrophizing) mediate the association between pain and QoL. METHODS: Using a cross sectional design, 175 men with CP/CPPS (mean age 46.83; SD 10.86) were recruited from tertiary care urology clinics and completed questionnaires on demographics, pain, QoL, pain coping, depression, and catastrophizing. An exploratory factor analysis was conducted and aggregate factor scores were examined to improve the amount of meaningful measurement to be used in multiple mediations. The models specified multiple risk factors as mechanisms between pain and both physical and mental QoL as the primary outcome measurements. RESULTS: Four aggregate psychosocial factor scores were produced from the psychosocial measures (i.e., illness and wellness-focused behavioural coping, depression and catastrophizing). Illness-focused coping partially mediated the relationship between pain and physical QoL. However, catastrophizing and illness-focused coping fully mediated the relation between pain and mental QoL, showing the association between pain and mental QoL was no longer significant when catastrophizing and illness-focused coping were in the model. CONCLUSION: Psychosocial factors function as mechanisms between higher pain and they are associated diminished mental QoL. These results introduce illness-focused coping as an important biopsychosocial target in CP/CPPS management.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".