Stages of chronicity in fibromyalgia and pain catastrophising: a cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fibromyalgia (FM) is a prevalent and disabling disorder characterised by widespread pain and other symptoms such as insomnia, fatigue and depression. Catastrophisation is considered to be a key clinical symptom in FM; however, few studies have investigated how contextual factors, such as catastrophisation, might contribute to the duration of the pain. The present research examined the relationship among pain, catastrophic thinking and FM impact, as a function of stage of chronicity. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, the sample of 328 patients diagnosed with FM was divided into 3 groups based on level of chronicity: Group A (6 months to 2 years, N = 46); Group B (2-4 years, N = 59); and Group C (more than 4 years, N = 223). The three subscales of the Pain Catastrophising Scale (PCS), rumination, magnification, and helplessness, were used as predictors of dysfunction. The Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire and the McGill Pain Questionnaire were also administered. A hierarchical regression analysis was performed on the entire sample and, subsequently, for each group to determine the effect of the continuous process variables (castastrophising and pain) on the stages of chronicity. RESULTS: Total score and PCS subscales were strongly associated with pain and impact in all the stages of chronicity in FM patients (r = 0.27-0.73, p < 0.05). For Group A, a regression analysis revealed that rumination predicted FM impact beyond the variance accounted for by age and pain. Both magnification and helplessness predicted impact in Group B, and helplessness was a significant predictor of impact in Group C. CONCLUSION: These findings provide preliminary evidence that stage of chronicity is an important moderator of psychological vulnerability for FM impact and should be taken into account by tailoring psychological interventions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".