MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134134022 · doi:10.2522/ptj.20100368

Psychological Factors in Chronic Pelvic Pain in Women: Relevance and Application of the Fear-Avoidance Model of Pain

2011· review· en· W2134134022 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Therapy · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy-related medical research
Canadian institutionsBishop's University
FundersNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases
KeywordsPelvic painRelevance (law)PsychologyChronic painPhysical therapyClinical significancePain catastrophizingMedicineClinical psychologyPsychotherapistPhysical medicine and rehabilitationSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chronic pelvic pain in women is a debilitating, costly condition often treated by physical therapists. The etiology of this condition is multifactorial and poorly understood, given the complex interplay of muscles, bones, and soft tissue that comprise the pelvis. There are few guidelines directing treatment interventions for this condition. In the last decade, several investigators have highlighted the role of psychological variables in conditions such as vulvodynia and painful bladder syndrome. Pain-related fear is the focus of the fear-avoidance model (FAM) of pain, which theorizes that some people are more likely to develop and maintain pain after an injury because of their emotional and behavioral responses to pain. The FAM groups people into 2 classes on the basis of how they respond to pain: people who have low fear, confront pain, and recover from injury and people who catastrophize pain-a response that leads to avoidance/escape behaviors, disuse, and disability. Given the presence of pain-related cognitions in women with chronic pelvic pain, including hypervigilance, catastrophizing, and anxiety, research directed toward the application of the FAM to guide therapeutic interventions is warranted. Isolated segments of the FAM have been studied to theorize why traditional approaches (ie, medications and surgery) may not lead to successful outcomes. However, the explicit application of the FAM to guide physical therapy interventions for women with chronic pelvic pain is not routine. Integrating the FAM might direct physical therapists' clinical decision making on the basis of the pain-related cognitions and behaviors of patients. The aims of this article are to provide information about the FAM of musculoskeletal pain and to provide evidence for the relevance of the FAM to chronic pelvic pain in women.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score0.671

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.085
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.313 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it