What does coping mean to the worker with pain-related disability? A qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Pain coping is important in health outcomes. In the current literature, pain coping usually means those goal-directed strategies to manage pain. The study goal was to explore what personal meaning “coping” has for work-disabled individuals in pain. Method: Qualitative, in depth interviews with follow-up verification interviews were conducted with 13 volunteers who were off work and in rehabilitation for chronic pain from a musculoskeletal injury. The two main questions were: (1) How did participants understand the term “coping with pain”; and (2) how did they come to this understanding of coping. The theoretical approach was social phenomenology and data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Results: The dominant theme was that pain coping is an intrinsic and life-defining attitude and belief. This understanding primarily arose through early modeling by parents and significant others. Secondary theme was that coping is practical strategies to manage or eliminate pain. This arose through more current interactions with health care providers and others in the social network. Conclusions: Researchers’ and clinicians’ view of coping may not always match the views held by individuals with chronic pain. This might impact on the effectiveness of interventions designed to modify coping behaviors, and alternative ways of intervening may be needed.Implications for RehabilitationCoping has an important impact on health recovery after musculoskeletal injuries but interventions to modify pain coping strategies in those with chronic pain have met with modest success.The dominant model for coping in the research literature defines coping as a behavioral and/or cognitive response to a stressful situation.A qualitative study to examine what personal meaning “coping” holds for work-disabled persons with chronic pain suggests that coping is primarily conceptualized as an intrinsic and life-defining attitude/belief learned early in life.The above incongruence between the dominant research model of coping and the views of workers with chronic pain might impact on the effectiveness of interventions designed to modify coping behaviors for this population, and alternative ways of intervening may be needed.
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 | 0.017 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".