Easy to Harm, Hard to Heal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Qualitative interview study. OBJECTIVE: Explore attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions related to low back pain (LBP) and analyze how these might influence the perceived threat associated with back pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Psychological factors that contribute to the perceived threat associated with LBP play an important role in back pain development and the progression to persistent pain and disability. Improved understanding of underlying beliefs may assist clinicians to investigate and assess these factors. METHODS: Semistructured qualitative interviews were conducted with 12 participants with acute LBP (<6-wk duration) and 11 participants with chronic LBP (>3 mo duration). Data were analyzed thematically using the framework of Interpretive Description. RESULTS: The back was viewed as being vulnerable to injury due to its design, the way in which it is used, and personal physical traits or previous injury. Consequently, participants considered that they needed to protect their back by resting, being careful with or avoiding dangerous activities, and strengthening muscles or controlling posture. Participants considered LBP to be special in its nature and impact, and they thought it difficult to understand without personal experience. The prognosis of LBP was considered uncertain by those with acute pain and poor by those with chronic pain. These beliefs combined to create a negative (mis)representation of the back. CONCLUSION: Negative assumptions about the back made by those with LBP may affect information processing during an episode of pain. This may result in attentional bias toward information indicating that the spine is vulnerable, an injury is serious, or the outcome will be poor. Approaching consultations with this understanding may assist clinicians to have a positive influence on beliefs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.
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 | 0.021 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".