How Well Do You Expect to Recover, and What Does Recovery Mean, Anyway? Qualitative Study of Expectations After a Musculoskeletal Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Expecting to recover from a musculoskeletal injury is associated with actual recovery. Expectations are potentially modifiable, although it is not well understood how injured people formulate expectations. A better understanding of how expectations are formulated may lead to better knowledge about how interventions might be implemented, what to intervene on, and when to intervene. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to explore what "recovery" meant to participants, whether they expected to "recover," and how they formed these expectations. METHODS: This qualitative study used interpretive phenomenological analysis. Eighteen semistructured interviews were conducted with people seeking treatment for recent musculoskeletal injuries. RESULTS: Recovery was conceptualized as either (1) complete cessation of symptoms or pain-free return to function or (2) return to function despite residual symptoms. Expectations were driven by desire for a clear diagnosis, belief (or disbelief) in the clinician's prognosis, prior experiences, other people's experiences and attitudes, information from other sources such as the Internet, and a sense of self as resilient. CONCLUSIONS: Expectations appear to be embedded in both hopes and fears, suggesting that clinicians should address both when negotiating realistic goals and educating patients. This approach is particularly relevant for cases of nonspecific musculoskeletal pain, where diagnoses are unclear and treatment may not completely alleviate pain.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".