Beliefs and Expectations for Recovery, Coping, and Depression in Whiplash-Associated Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Literature review and discussion. OBJECTIVE: To discuss the role played by beliefs, expectations, coping, and depression in the transition to chronicity in whiplash-associated disorders (WAD), and to discuss their clinical and research implications. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Psychological factors are important in musculoskeletal pain problems. Recently, there has been attention paid to their role in the transition from acute to chronic WAD. However, most of this attention has focused on identifying and addressing the personal and behavioral aspects of psychological factors, and little focus on the social and societal influences shaping these factors in WAD patients. METHODS: A literature review was conducted to describe the evidence regarding the roles of beliefs, expectations, pain coping, and depression in WAD recovery. These psychological constructs and research findings were discussed in the context of efforts to improve beliefs, coping, and psychological well-being in WAD. RESULTS: There is consistent evidence negative beliefs about WAD are common in the general population and that poor expectations for recovery are associated with poor recovery. Pain coping and depression also appear to predict WAD recovery. The conceptual frameworks (such as social learning theory) for understanding these psychological constructs highlight the roles of interpersonal and societal factors. However, most research and clinical interventions related to these factors focuses on the individual, rather than also addressing the social context. CONCLUSION: Beliefs, expectations, coping, and depression all predict WAD recovery. Efforts to address these factors should take a broad-based approach. These psychological constructs should be viewed as being developed and maintained within the broader social context of family, social networks, employment, and societal processes in general. There is need for a research and clinical paradigm, which acknowledges the interrelationships between internal processes and the social context in attempts to optimize recovery and functioning in those with WAD.
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 | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".