The Impact of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome Type I on an Individual's Occupational Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research study examined the effect of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS) Type I, on a person's occupational performance. Ten subjects with a diagnosis of CRPS Type I were investigated by using a semi-structured interview followed by two standardised assessments: the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) and a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). The COPM measured occupational performance, and the VAS measured pain intensity. Descriptive data on participants’ views and their perspectives on responsibilities regarding work, leisure and self-care were collected. The effects of CRPS ranged from loss of movement, impairment in sensation, physical symptoms such as drowsiness and general malaise, hand function problems and a variety of emotional and psychological problems. Statistical analysis, which evaluated performance and satisfaction scores attained from the COPM showed a significant positive correlation between satisfaction and performance scores (r=0.982, p<0.05). A significant correlation was also found between performance and pain intensity and satisfaction and pain intensity. Results suggest that both the professional team together with CRPS I sufferers are insufficiently informed about this disease and its development. Within the local context, it was evident that there is lack of knowledge in relation to the condition. Therefore a medical oriented model of treatment is being followed, without consideration of patients’ perceptions and needs. It is suggested that the management of CRPS I patients needs to be focused upon the individual. A further cross-sectional study would assist in the analysis of the physical and psychological effects of CRPS I on the individual.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".