Examining the Pain Stages of Change Questionnaire in Chronic Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This study examined the relationships of a readiness to adopt a self-management approach to chronic pain, measured by the Pain Stages of Change Questionnaire (PSOCQ), with other pain-related scales in patients attending a chronic pain management program and determined if these measures changed from admission to discharge. The PSOCQ consists of four stages: Pre-contemplation, Contemplation, Action and Maintenance. Method: A convenience sample of 140 patients (mean age = 43.8 years; SD = 8.3 years) with chronic pain completed the PSOCQ, the Pain Disability Index (PDI), the Pain Intensity Scale (PIS), the Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression Scale (CES-D) and the Multidimensional Health Locus of Control Scale (MHLC) at admission and discharge. The MHLC consists of three subscales: Internal, Chance and Powerful Others. Results: At discharge, Pearson correlation coefficients demonstrated that Pre-contemplation was positively associated with the PDI, the PIS and the CES-D and negatively associated with Internal MHLC, whereas Action and Maintenance showed the opposite findings. There were significant improvements in all measures, except the MHLC, over the four-week program. Conclusions: These findings provide support for the use of the PSOCQ in assessing patients' readiness to adopt a self-management approach to pain and in monitoring their progress in rehabilitation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".