Enhanced Psychological Health Among Chronic Pain Clients Engaged in Hope-Focused Group Counseling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Researchers have begun to evaluate interventions intended to enhance hope in various populations. Chronic pain is a pervasive problem with significant psychosocial consequences. This article presents studies that examined the extent to which a hope-focused group counseling intervention enhances hope and well-being in two community-based samples of participants ( N =10 and N = 24) experiencing chronic pain. A pilot study (Study 1a) and a main study (Study 1b) both used a one-group, pretest–posttest design to determine whether participants experienced changes regarding their hope, well-being, acceptance of pain, and catastrophizing of pain. Both studies showed that participants experienced numerous and significant changes from pre- to post-intervention, including improvements in well-being and pain acceptance in Study 1a and improvements in hope, well-being, and catastrophizing cognitions in Study 1b. Self-reported pain severity, assessed only in Study 1a, did not change. We discuss implications for practice, study limitations, and potential lines of hope-related inquiry for future research.
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 | 0.026 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".