Osteoarthritis: Patient Expectations about Future Pain, Stiffness and Function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to examine the difference between osteoarthritis patients' self-reported assessments of current pain, stiffness and physical function and their expectations of these symptoms in one and five years' time, and to determine the significant predictors of positive expectations. METHODS: Eighty patients completed ratings of baseline assessments and one- and five-year expectations of pain, stiffness and physical function using the Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). Measures of illness perceptions, coping styles, health values, satisfaction, quality of life, optimism, self-esteem and moods were also collected at baseline. Agreement between patients' current assessment and expectations were calculated using intra-class correlations (ICCs). Paired-sample t-tests were conducted to look at differences between assessments. Univariate logistic regressions were then performed to identify the variables significantly associated with positive expectations of pain, stiffness and function. Significant variables (p < 0.05) were entered into a forward stepwise multivariate logistic regression to identify unique independent predictors of positive expectations for each of the WOMAC subscales. RESULTS: Differences were found between current assessments and expectations, with the majority of patients being positive about future symptoms. There were some differences between the predictors for one- and five-year expectations, with current assessments of health status only affecting five-year expectations. CONCLUSIONS: It is necessary to investigate further the variables that may contribute to positive expectations in osteoarthritis patients in order to manage the condition more effectively.
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 | 0.000 | 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".