Pain, perceived injustice and the persistence of post-traumatic stress symptoms during the course of rehabilitation for whiplash injuries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study assessed the role of pain and pain-related psychological variables in the persistence of post-traumatic stress symptoms following whiplash injury. Individuals (N=112) with whiplash injuries who had been admitted to a standardized multidisciplinary rehabilitation program were asked to complete measures of pain, post-traumatic stress symptoms, physical function and pain-related psychological variables at three different points during their treatment program. The findings are consistent with previous research showing that indicators of injury severity such as pain, reduced function and disability, and scores on pain-related psychological were associated with more severe post-traumatic stress symptoms in individuals with whiplash injuries. Contrary to expectations, indicators of pain severity did not contribute to the persistence of post-traumatic stress symptoms. Univariate analyses revealed that self-reported disability, pain catastrophizing and perceived injustice were significant determinants of the persistence of post-traumatic stress symptoms. In multivariate analyses, only perceived injustice emerged as a unique predictor of the persistence of post-traumatic stress symptoms. The results suggest that early adequate management of pain symptoms and disability consequent to whiplash injury might reduce the severity of post-traumatic stress symptoms. The development of effective intervention techniques for targeting perceptions of injustice might be important for promoting recovery of post-traumatic stress symptoms consequent to whiplash injury.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".