Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Living with a patient with chronic pain is now known to have a negative impact on physical and mental health of the caregivers. Research indicates that adaptive coping strategies can reduce the burden that pain has on patients. Yet, it is unknown whether coping strategies can also affect the physical and mental health of the spouses of patients with chronic pain. In the present research, we investigated the role of coping strategies used by spouses of patients with pain in the relationship between the pain intensity of the patients and the physical and mental health of their spouses. METHODS: The study comprised 195 heterosexual couples. About 41% of spouses were females. RESULTS: Our results showed that being older, having a lower educational level, having a negative orientation toward problems, and using impulsive strategies to cope when in difficult situations contributed to poorer physical health of spouses. A poorer mental health status of spouses was associated with being negatively oriented toward problems, being a female, and being a caregiver of mentally distressed patient. In addition, it was found that the impulsive-careless coping strategy used by the spouses moderated the relationship between patients' pain severity and physical health of their spouses. At low levels of patients' pain intensity as rated by spouses, spouses reported similar levels of physical health irrespective of coping ratings. Conversely, at high levels of patients' pain intensity as rated by spouses, poorer physical health was reported by spouses scoring high on impulsive-careless coping. DISCUSSION: Implications for clinical practice are discussed. Our findings suggest that screening for coping strategies used by spouses of patients with pain might complement clinical interventions aimed at promoting the physical and mental health of patients and their partners.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".