Detection and Management of Chronic Neck Pain Effects During Rehabilitation with the Application of Nursing Advisory Support [Prot.Number:11682/18.3.11]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In the general population 30‐50% of adults will ex perience musculoskeletal neck pain in any given year. The traditional pathoanatomical (bi omedical) approach to the diagnosis of neck pain disorders is widely acknowledged as inadequate. Psychosocial factors have been reported associated with increased risk for more disabling chronic neck pain. Objective: The objective of this article is to present the de sign of a qualitative study in combination with a quantitative pretest posttest-control group design study. The aim of the described research is the construction and performance of a new, valid tool i n the form of questionnaire, in order health professionals to administrate emotional reactions o f patients suffering from chronic neck pain, the effectiveness of which will be explored in conjunct ion with the implementation of a specific treatment program and simultaneously, conducting advisory support. Methods: A qualitative study using semi structured intervie ws will be conducted in 6 patients with CNP. The results of the interviews will arise a res ervoir of questions available for the new questionnaire- tool for managing patients’ emotiona l reactions. Validity and reliability of the questionnaire will be reassured checking conceptual validity, content validity and structural validity with the use of exploratory factor analyses and con firmatory factor analyses.Then, 30 participants wil l be separated in two groups: a) the control group wh ere patients will follow the therapeutic exercise program without parallel counseling, b) the experim ental group where participants will follow along therapeutic exercise program plus counseling. Outcome measurement: Inclusion and exclusion variables, demographic var iables, duration of neck pain, specific complaint characteristics , smoking , the McGill Pain Questionnaire, the Neck Disabilit y Index , the Fear Avoidance Belief Questionnaire, th e SF-36 Health Survey, the new questionnaire o f this study, neck goniometry measurements will be th e standardized outcome measures.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".