How well are you recovering? The association between a simple question about recovery and patient reports of pain intensity and pain disability in whiplash-associated disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: There is potential value in developing a brief assessment tool for assessing recovery after musculoskeletal injuries. Our goal was to investigate the association between a one-item global self-assessment of recovery and commonly used measures of recovery status. Method: We followed a cohort of 6,021 adults with acute whiplash-associated disorders for six months. Pain, depression, work status and physical health were assessed at baseline and follow-up. The question “How do you feel you are recovering from your injury?” (six response options from “all better” to “getting much worse”) and functional limitations were administered at follow-up. Results: Responses to the recovery question was associated with our other indices of recovery. Those “all better” had the lowest pain intensity, pain-related limitations, depression and work disability, and the best general physical health. Incrementally poorer recovery ratings on the recovery question were associated with greater pain, functional limitations and depression, poorer physical health and being off work, although “no improvement” and “getting a little worse” were similar. Recovery categories also reflected different degrees of actual improvements over the preceding follow-up period. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that a single recovery question is a useful tool for conducting brief global assessments of recovery of musculoskeletal injuries.Implications for RehabilitationMusculoskeletal injuries are common sources of disability and pain.Having a quick and easy way of tracking patient recovery helps clinicians to be quickly responsive in modifying aspects of rehabilitation as required.A brief question “How are you recovering from your injuries?” with response options ranging from “all better” to “quite a bit worse,” performed well when compared with other indices of recovery.This brief question can help guide decisions about intensity and type of rehabilitation in treatment of musculoskeletal injuries.
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 | 0.009 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".