Impact of culture on male and female patients coping with pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim:To investigate cultural differences on types of coping strategies employed by male and female patients.Method:72 Chronic pain patients were selected over 18 months. Patients were screened out if they had any physical disability or were getting psychiatric treatment. Besides demographic data, McGill Pain Questionnaire, Coping Strategies Questionnaire and Berlin Social-Support Scales were employed to record the study variables. Age range of patients varied from 25- 58 years. All the patients were educated, working and belonged to middle class.Results:Out of 72 patients (40 females: 32 males) 78% patients had impaired physical functioning. Perception of pain depended upon the age, sex, amount of perceived social support and contact with the treating doctor. Females frequently employed “religious coping” (95%) and used “self statements” (80%); as opposed to males who relied on “ignoring the sensations” (88%) and “increasing behavioral activities” (65%). None “diverted attention” through the ways they thought were not religious or culture appropriate.Discussion:The study reflected the cultural differences in type of coping strategy employed by a given patient. Female patients were somatically- focused but only 35% met the criteria for Somatization Disorder. Male patients employed techniques that allowed their control on the environment and illness whereas females patients relied on techniques that were passive in nature. Learning to live with a chronic pain is quite challenging for women who are feeling-oriented and look up to men not only to fulfill their needs but to get social approval in the context of Pakistani society.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".