The correlation among pain,self-efficacy and quality of life of patients with prolapse of lumbar intervertebral disc
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To investigate the status of pain,self-efficacy and quality of life of patients with prolapse of lumbar intervertebral disc,and explore the correlation among them.Methods A total of 100 patients with prolapse of lumbar intervertebral disc were investigated with Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire,Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire and Short Form 36 Health Survey Questionnaire.Results The pain rating index of patients with prolapse of lumbar intervertebral disc was(9.77±4.66),and the score of visual analogue scale was(52.08±14.56),and the score of present pain intensity was(2.11±0.53).The score of pain self-efficacy was(32.26±11.15).The score of the eight dimensions of the quality of life of patients with prolapse of lumbar intervertebral disc were significantly lower than the norm group and the difference was statistically significant(P0.01).There was a positive correlation between patients' self-efficacy and their quality of life,while there was a negative correlation between patients' pain level and their quality of life.Similarly,there was a negative correlation between the score of visual analogue scale,pain rating index and the score of pain self-efficacy(P0.01).Conclusion For patients with prolapse of lumbar intervertebral disc,the pain,self-efficacy and quality of life are interacting each other.Nurse should explore effective interventions to improve patients' quality of life.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".