The Role of Pain Coping and Kinesiophobia in Patients With Complex Regional Pain Syndrome Type 1 of the Legs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this cross-sectional study was to evaluate to what extent pain coping and kinesiophobia contribute to limitations in activity and participation in patients with complex regional pain syndrome type 1 (CRPS-1) of the lower limbs. METHODS: A total of 238 patients with CRPS-1 of the legs from 4 pain clinics and 1 Department of Neurology of University Hospitals participated in this study. Pain and CRPS severity were assessed with the pain rating index of the McGill Pain Questionnaire and the CRPS Severity Score, respectively. Activity was measured with the Rising & Walking scale, and participation with the Social Functioning scale of the SF-36. In addition, the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia and Pain Coping Inventory were administered. Hierarchical linear regression was used to evaluate to what extent kinesiophobia and pain coping contributed to difficulties with Rising & Walking and Social Functioning. RESULTS: The analyses showed that the "resting" subscale of the Pain Coping Inventory-that is, 1 of the 3 scales evaluating passive pain coping strategies-contributed significantly to difficulties in rising and walking (explaining 12.5% of the variance) and to difficulties in social functioning (explaining 6.5%), whereas kinesiophobia was not associated with either of these measures. DISCUSSION: These findings indicate that making use of "resting" as a pain coping strategy contributes significantly to limitations in activity and participation in patients with CRPS-1 of the legs. Indications for a negative influence of kinesiophobia or a positive influence of an active pain coping style were not found.
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 | 0.007 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".