Occupational performance and factors associated with outcomes in patients participating in a musculoskeletal pain rehabilitation programme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess outcomes after a pain rehabilitation programme in terms of occupational performance and satisfaction with occupational performance, and to investigate whether socio-demographic factors and pain-related factors were associated with outcomes at follow-up. METHODS: A pre- and post-test study of 555 participants with musculoskeletal pain who completed a pain rehabilitation programme. The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) was used as the primary outcome measure. Socio-demographic and pain-related factors were collected using background questionnaires, the Disability Rating Index (DRI) and the Multidimensional Pain Inventory (MPI). Data were analysed using multivariate logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: Statistically significant improvements were seen on occupational performance and satisfaction with occupational performance at the 1-year follow-up. Female gender, less severe disability, less life interference and more life control predicted improvements 1 year after the programme. High initial scores on occupational performance and satisfaction with performance predicted reduced possibilities for improvements in these respects. CONCLUSION: A pain rehabilitation programme can, for a majority of participants, affect occupational performance and satisfaction with performance. Men and those with more severe pain-related consequences may need additional or modified rehabilitation interventions in order to improve their occupational performance and satisfaction with occupational performance.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".