Obstacles to activity pacing: assessment, relationship to activity and functioning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Activity pacing is frequently included among the strategies provided to individuals with chronic pain to manage pain and improve functioning. Individuals with chronic pain may, however, limit their use of activity pacing because they perceive significant obstacles to its use. This study describes the development of a measure to assess obstacles to activity pacing and examines the relationship of this measure to activity patterns and functioning. A sample of 637 individuals with chronic pain completed items describing potential obstacles to activity pacing as part of their pretreatment assessment. Item analyses were used to construct a 14-item measure of obstacles to activity pacing. A subset of these individuals completed the measure again after completion of a group treatment program. The resulting measure demonstrated excellent internal consistency and was minimally affected by social desirability. Correlations with measures of activity and psychosocial functioning provided initial construct validity for the measure. Sex differences were found with women initially identifying more obstacles to activity pacing. Fewer obstacles were identified by both men and women after treatment, and these changes were related to modest changes in activity patterns and functioning. The present results identify a number of obstacles that may limit the use of activity pacing by individuals with chronic pain. Treatment may result in a decrease in the number of obstacles identified, and this change is related to changes in the individual's activity pattern and psychosocial functioning.
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 | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".