The Effectiveness of Multidisciplinary Rehabilitation in the Treatment of Fibromyalgia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of multidisciplinary rehabilitation in the treatment of fibromyalgia in comparison to standard medical care. METHODS: Seventy-nine men and women were randomly assigned to one of two groups. The intervention group consisted of a rheumatologist and physical therapist intake and discharge, 18 group supervised exercise therapy sessions, 2 group pain and stress management lectures, 1 group education lecture, 1 group dietary lecture, and 2 massage therapy sessions. The control group consisted of standard medical care with the patients' family physician. Outcome measures included self-perceived health status, pain-related disability, average pain intensity, depressed mood, days in pain, hours in pain, prescription and nonprescription medication usage, and work status. Outcomes were measured at the end of the 6-week intervention and at 15-month follow-up. RESULTS: Thirty-five out of 43 patients from the intervention group and 36 out of 36 patients from the control group completed the study. There were no statistically significant differences between the 2 groups prior to intervention. Intention-to-treat analysis revealed that the intervention group, in comparison to the control group, experienced statistically significant changes at intervention completion in self-perceived health status, average pain intensity, pain related disability, depressed mood, days in pain, and hours in pain, but no significant differences in nonprescription drug use, prescription drug use, or work status. At 15 months, all health outcomes retained their significance except health status. Nonprescription and prescription drug use demonstrated significant reductions at 15 months. Binary logistic regression indicated that long-term changes in Pain Disability Index were influenced by long-term exercise adherence and income status. CONCLUSIONS: Positive health-related outcomes in this mostly unresponsive condition can be obtained with a low-cost, group multidisciplinary intervention in a community-based, nonclinical setting.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".