Acceptance of pain: A study in patients with advanced cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pain, among the most common symptoms of cancer, impacts on multiple domains of wellbeing. Significant numbers of patients continue to experience pain despite pharmacological interventions. Although there is evidence to suggest that acceptance of pain is related to better wellbeing among patients with chronic nonmalignant pain, little is known about acceptance of cancer pain. The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to determine the correlates of pain acceptance in 81 patients with advanced cancer and pain. Demographic, disease, and treatment-related information was collected, and patients completed measures of pain, physical, psychological, and social/relational wellbeing and pain acceptance. Multivariate regression models, using backward elimination, determined the correlates of each subscale of the Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire separately. Activity Engagement was negatively associated with depressive symptoms. Pain Willingness was negatively associated with pain catastrophizing. Parents living with children had lower Pain Willingness scores than non-parents. These relationships were independent of pain severity and physical functioning. These preliminary results suggest that acceptance of cancer pain is related to better psychological wellbeing and that there may be a relational element, with parents at risk of experiencing difficulty in adapting to ongoing cancer pain. These data lay the groundwork for future research and interventions designed to enhance quality of life for patients with advanced cancer and 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 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 | 0.001 | 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".