Change in Suicidal Ideation After Interdisciplinary Treatment of Chronic Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To examine suicidal ideation (SI) in individuals with chronic pain, especially change in suicidal thinking after interdisciplinary treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients (n=250) admitted to a 4-week, group-based chronic pain management program completed measures of pain intensity, functional limitations, depressive symptoms, overall distress, pain catastrophizing, self-perceived burden, and SI at pretreatment and posttreatment. RESULTS: Before treatment, 30 (12.0%) participants were classified as having a high level of SI, 56 (22.4%) had a low level of SI, and 164 (65.6%) reported none. After treatment, there was a significant reduction in SI and improvements in all other outcomes, but there were still some individuals with high (n=22, 8.8%) or low (n=28, 11.2%) levels at discharge. Patients with high SI at baseline differed from those with no suicidal thinking on pretreatment and posttreatment measures of depression, distress, catastrophizing, and self-perceived burden, but not on pain intensity or functional limitations. Patients high in SI endorsed greater pain catastrophizing and self-perceived burden than those low in suicidal thinking. Sustained SI after treatment was associated with higher baseline levels of suicidal thinking and self-perceived burden to others, as well as a more limited overall response to treatment. DISCUSSION: SI was common in individuals with chronic pain, although mostly at a low level. Interdisciplinary treatment may result in reduced suicidal thinking; however, some patients continue to express thoughts of self-harm. Future studies could examine processes of change and interventions for treatment-resistant suicidal concerns.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".