A Review of Empirically Supported Psychosocial Interventions for Pain and Adherence Outcomes in Sickle Cell Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review empirical studies of psychological interventions for pain and adherence outcomes among patients with sickle cell disease. METHOD: We conducted a literature review of studies using psychological interventions targeted at pain and/or adherence behaviors related to sickle cell disease. The American Psychological Association Division 12 Task Force criteria (Chambless criteria) were used to evaluate the empirical support for three categories of interventions (cognitive-behavioral techniques, interventions aimed at behavioral change, and social support interventions). RESULTS: A small number of intervention studies met criteria for demonstrating empirical efficacy. As a group, cognitive-behavioral techniques fall into the category of probably efficacious for sickle cell pain. Other intervention types were limited by inadequate research methodologies. CONCLUSIONS: Future studies will need to more stringently test outcomes related to acute crises (e.g., pain episodes) as well as day-to-day management of sickle cell disease to clarify the most efficacious intervention approaches. Implications and suggestions for future research directions are discussed.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".