Psychosocial variables affect the quality of life of men diagnosed with chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine interactions between demographic, pain, urinary, psychological and environmental predictors of quality of life (QOL) in men with chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 253 men previously enrolled in the National Institutes of Health Chronic Prostatitis Cohort study in North American tertiary-care clinical centres (six in the USA and one in Canada) self-reported with validated instruments, including the QOL subscales of the Short Form-12 (physical, SF12-PCS; and mental, SF12-MCS), demographics, urinary symptoms, depression, current pain, pain coping, 'catastrophizing' (catastrophic thinking about pain), pain control, social support and solicitous responses from a partner. Data were collected through a one-time survey. Covariates determined to be significant were entered into a multivariable regression model predicting SF12-PCS and SF12-MCS. RESULTS: Adjusting for covariates, regression models showed that poorer SF12-PCS scores were predicted by worse urinary function (P < 0.001) and increased use of pain-contingent resting as a coping strategy (P = 0.026). Further, poorer SF12-MCS scores were predicted by greater pain catastrophizing (P = 0.002) and lower perceptions of social support (P< 0.001). In separate follow-up analyses, helplessness was the significant catastrophizing subscale (P < 0.001), while support from family and friends were the significant social support subscales (P = 0.002 and <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that specific coping and environmental factors (i.e. catastrophizing, pain-contingent resting, social support) are significant in understanding how patients with CP/CPPS adjust. These data can be used to develop specific cognitive-behavioural programmes for men with CP/CPPS who are refractory to standard medical therapy.
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 | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".