Changes in coping style and treatment outcome following motor vehicle accident.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Motor vehicle accidents (MVAs) are highly prevalent and can result in a complex interplay of physical injury, disability, and emotional distress. It has been suggested that the manner in which individuals cope with pain experienced after injury may determine how much recovery of function can be achieved. Only a limited number of studies have examined this process in the context of a rehabilitation program, and to date few studies have examined both functional and quality of life outcomes in MVA recovery in a tertiary level program as a function of coping style. METHODS: A sample of 96 consecutive referrals to a tertiary-level multidisciplinary functional restoration program completed physical performance measures pre- and post-treatment, as well as a standardized self-report measure of quality of life (QOL) at the same time points and 6-month follow-up. RESULTS: Findings suggested that improvements from pre- to post-treatment were evident on the 6-minute walk test, left and right grip strength, and most QOL measures. Increases in active coping during treatment were associated with pre- to post-treatment increases in QOL across most domains, and improvements in performance on the 6-minute walk test. Likewise, decreases in passive coping during the course of treatment were associated with improved performance on the 6-minute walk test, right-handed standing reach test, and most QOL indicators. CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that those who adopt an active approach (and avoid taking a passive approach) to rehabilitation following complex musculoskeletal injury benefit along both QOL and functional dimensions relative to those who do not.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".