Workers’ perspectives on low back pain recurrence: “It comes and goes and comes and goes, but it's always there”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although various measures of low back pain (LBP) recurrence have been proposed, none have been tested to determine if they are consistent with what those with LBP perceive a "recurrence" to be. To further the understanding of LBP recurrence and how to measure it, we examined how individuals with a history of LBP describe their back pain experiences. A qualitative approach was chosen and six mixed-gender focus groups were conducted. Discussions were facilitated by two researchers and structured around predetermined questions. All four authors were involved in the data analysis and thematic congruence was achieved through an iterative process of coding and discussion. Participants included 31 individuals (14 female, 17 male), with ages ranging from early 20s to mid 70s. When asked about LBP recurrence, participants had difficulty understanding the concept. There was a sense that, although the pain may disappear, the condition was always there. Three states were defined: "normal," "flared-up," and "attack." "Normal" could include experiencing pain, but generally represented a tolerable state. "Flared-up" was associated with increased pain, the use of strategies to overcome difficulties, and modified participation. "Attack" state was described as severely disabled: "I just have to lay there." Participants described their experiences in a way that is consistent with the idea that LBP is a fluctuating and disabling health condition. Results cast doubt on the validity of currently available measures of LBP recurrence. Focusing on recurrence of pain without consideration of broader contextual factors will result in an incomplete understanding of the meaning of the pain experience.
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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".