Evaluation of changes in occupational performance among patients in a pain management program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to evaluate changes in occupational performance among chronic pain patients after a pain management program and to explore relationships between these changes and demographic and clinical factors, psychosocial functioning and psychological well-being. SUBJECTS: 188 consecutive patients were included. METHODS: Changes were registered by using Canadian Occupational Performance Measure, Multidimensional Pain Inventory and Psychological General Well-Being Index. RESULTS: There were statistically significant positive changes in occupational performance. Patients with sickness compensation had significantly higher changes in occupational performance than those without sickness compensation. The patients with a profile group as interpersonally distressed had statistically significant higher change scores on occupational performance than the adaptive coper group. Furthermore, increases in changes on general activity level, general health, and vitality and decreases in pain severity were associated with positive changes on perceived occupational performance and performance satisfaction. CONCLUSION: Changes in occupational performance, psychological well-being and psychosocial functioning seem all to be of relevance in the evaluation of pain management programs. Psychosocial profiles and sickness compensation has relevance for directions on changes in occupational performance, whereas other demographic and clinical factors do not.
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 | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".