Fear of Pain in Patients With Advanced Cancer or in Patients With Chronic Noncancer Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: pain is one of the most prevalent symptoms in patients with advanced cancer and, according to anecdotal reports, perhaps the most feared. Surprisingly, fear of pain has been the subject of little research within cancer care. The literature on chronic noncancer pain, however, suggests that fear of pain contributes to limitations in function in populations with diverse chronic illness. Little is known about the extent to which such findings might generalize from patients with chronic noncancer pain to those with chronic cancer pain. Therefore, this research examined the extent to which fear of pain is associated with limitations in function in patients with advanced cancer and also compared patients with chronic cancer and noncancer pain. METHODS: we recruited 117 patients with advanced cancer who received a referral for pain management and 118 patients with a primary complaint of chronic noncancer pain. Participants completed self-report questionnaires. RESULTS: findings revealed similarities between the groups for fear of pain and limitations in function, but they differed on level of depression and pain severity (patients with noncancer pain were more depressed and reported higher pain severity). Fear of pain independently predicted limitations in function in both groups controlling for demographic variables and pain severity. When depression and physical symptoms were controlled, fear of pain predicted limitations in function only in patients with advanced cancer. DISCUSSION: the findings emphasize the importance of psychological dimensions of pain in patients with advanced cancer, as well as the similarities and differences between the 2 groups of patients suffering from chronic 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 | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".