Chronic Pain in Older Adults: A Controlled Pilot Trial of a Brief Cognitive-Behavioural Group Treatment
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic pain is a common condition among older adults. While cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) has been tested in numerous studies on adults and children there are fewer studies on older persons. The objective of this study was to investigate the effects of a six-session CBT group treatment for older persons with chronic pain. As a secondary aim we investigated whether treatment credibility was associated with outcome. METHOD: We included 21 persons (mean age = 72.0 years) who were randomly allocated to either a waitlist condition or treatment consisting of applied relaxation, with the addition of problem solving, assertiveness, communication strategies, sleep management, and relapse prevention. RESULTS: Few statistically significant effects were found on measures of pain, mood, anxiety, and quality of life; however, a significant treatment effect with a between group effect size of d = 1.0 was observed with respect to perceived ability to function despite the discomfort of pain. CONCLUSION: The study provides some preliminary support for the use of group-based CBT with a focus on applied relaxation for older adults with chronic pain.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 it