Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and Pain Impact Functioning and Disability After Major Burn Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study sought to clarify the prospective and concurrent associations of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and pain with functioning and disability after burn injury. The sample was composed of consecutive patients admitted to a regional burn center with major burn injuries (N = 171) who were followed at 1, 6, 12, and 24 months postdischarge. The predictor measures were the McGill Pain Questionnaire and Davidson Trauma Scale, and the outcome measures were Short Form-36 Health Survey subscales administered at 6, 12, and 24 months after discharge. Linear mixed-effects analyses were conducted to evaluate pain and PTSD as predictors of functional outcomes. Higher PTSD symptom severity soon after hospital discharge was prospectively related to poorer physical and social functioning and greater psychosocial disability (P < .001). However, significant PTSD-by-time interactions also predicted future physical functioning and disability, indicating that the deleterious effects of early PTSD were ameliorated by time. In addition, at each follow-up, PTSD symptoms were concurrently related to greater physical and psychosocial disability, poorer social functioning, and less vitality (P < .001). More severe pain at each follow-up, but not PTSD, was correlated with poorer concurrent physical functioning (P < .002). Significant interaction terms indicated that the concurrent effect of PTSD on psychosocial disability, social functioning, and vitality attenuated during the 24-month recovery period. These findings suggest that assessing PTSD and pain following burn injury may aid in predicting future functioning. Future work should confirm this and evaluate whether aggressively treating both PTSD and pain helps improve functioning after major burn injury.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".