Impact of Adult Attachment Styles on Pain and Disability Associated With Arthritis in a Nationally Representative Sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate Mikail et al.'s hypothesis that adult attachment styles are associated with important pain-related variables such as pain and disability levels. DESIGN: A cross-sectional design was used to examine the relation between measures of adult attachment styles and both pain and disability. SETTING: The data used were obtained from the National Comorbidity Survey, a large and nationally representative sample of community-dwelling individuals aged 15 to 54 years. In the present study, individuals (n = 381) in the National Comorbidity Survey with arthritis or related conditions were included. OUTCOME MEASURES: Ratings regarding three adult attachment styles (secure, anxious, and avoidant) were obtained by administering Hazan and Shaver's attachment self-report in an interview format. Pain and disability were assessed in a similar manner using four-point rating scales. RESULTS: Ratings of insecure attachment were positively and significantly correlated with both pain and disability. A multiple regression analysis revealed that pain severity and the rating of anxious attachment could account for 20.3% of the variance in disability. CONCLUSIONS: The attachment theory holds promise for understanding reactions to pain conditions, and Mikail et al.'s model warrants further investigation.
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 | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".