Psychological Factors in the Use of the Neck Disability Index in Chronic Whiplash Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional clinical study. OBJECTIVE: Determine if psychological factors "fear avoidance behavior" and "pain amplification," along with age, gender, duration, and pain severity correlate with scores of self-rated disability in chronic whiplash sufferers. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The Fear Avoidance Model has gained acceptance in the understanding of whiplash-associate disorders (WAD). While the variables important in this model have been studied in acute/subacute samples and some small chronic samples, no study has explicitly investigated the role these and other psychosocial variables play in the self-ratings of neck-related disability in chronic WAD sufferers. METHODS: Chronic WAD sufferers (>3 months) were recruited from private practice. No WAD IV subjects were included. Subjects completed a Neck Disability Index (NDI), Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK), pain visual analogue scale, and pain diagram. Clinical and demographic data were also obtained. Univariate correlations were obtained with the Spearman rank correlation coefficient. Items achieving statistical significance on univariate analysis were loaded in a step-wise linear regression analysis. RESULTS: One hundred seven subjects were investigated (54 females), with a mean age of 45.4 (17) years and a mean duration of 13.4 (14.6) months. Fair to moderately strong correlations were obtained between the NDI and the TSK, pain visual analogue scale and pain drawing scores, but not with "duration." The Pain Diagram correlated with NDI scores and pain severity. A multivariate model accounting for 31% of the variance of the NDI scores (P < 0.001) was obtained with the TSK, pain severity, and pain drawing. CONCLUSION: It appears that important psychological factors (fear avoidance beliefs and pain amplification) do have some influence on self-ratings of disability in chronic WAD sufferers. This does not appear to be larger than that found in studies of acute/subacute subjects. The influence of these factors may plateau fairly early in the post-WAD period. There is some evidence that the Pain Diagram may provide insight into nonorganic pain behavior.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".