Self-Beliefs about Pain and Occupational Performance: A Comparison of Two Measures Used in a Pain Management Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluated the relationship between pain self-efficacy, occupational performance, and satisfaction with performance in clients with chronic pain who participated in a hospital-based pain management program. Self-efficacy was measured using the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (Nicholas, 1988). Occupational performance and satisfaction were measured using the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (Law et al., 1998). Data were collected from 64 clients who completed both measures before and after a 3-week pain management program. Results of the study demonstrated a positive difference between pain self-efficacy and occupational performance ( t = 4.43, df = 62, p < .05), and between pain self-efficacy and satisfaction ( t = 4.02, df = 62, p < .05). This research suggests that therapy should address the beliefs of clients about their abilities to perform occupations when living with chronic pain (Strong, 1995) and reinforces the use of the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire and Canadian Occupational Performance Measure as reliable and valid assessment measures for those with 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 | 0.028 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".