Contributions of pain‐related adjustment and perceptions of control to coping strategy use among cervical sprain patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coping is a cyclical process in which an individual evaluates stressful events, chooses and implements coping strategies, re-evaluates the outcome of the coping effort and modifies the strategy if necessary. The intent of the present study was to evaluate the extent to which pain-related adjustment (i.e. pain severity, pain interference, negative affect) and perceptions of control are associated with the implementation of particular coping strategies. Participants were 136 patients assessed at an interdisciplinary pain clinic for cervical sprain injuries. As part of a routine assessment, participants completed a questionnaire package regarding background, pain severity, pain interference, negative affect, perceived control and use of particular coping strategies. Results of hierarchical multiple regression analyses revealed that pain interference, after controlling for all other variables, was associated with greater use of less physically demanding strategies (i.e. resting, guarding, asking for assistance, seeking social support and coping self-statements). Negative affect, on the other hand, after controlling for other variables, was associated with reduced use of task persistence. Finally, perceived control, independent of other variables, was associated with greater use of cognitive and social coping strategies (i.e. asking for assistance, seeking social support and coping self-statements). The results of the study shed light on the complex relationship between use of particular coping strategies and situational variables of pain-related adjustment and perceived control. Implications for clinicians who assist patients via implementation or modification of particular coping techniques are discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".