Social Disruption Mediates the Relationship Between Perceived Injustice and Anger in Chronic Pain: a Collaborative Health Outcomes Information Registry Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Perceptions of pain as unfair are a significant risk factor for poorer physical and psychological outcomes in acute injury and chronic pain. Chief among the negative emotions associated with perceived injustice is anger, arising through frustration of personal goals and unmet expectations regarding others' behavior. However, despite a theoretical connection with anger, the social mediators of perceived injustice have not been demonstrated in chronic pain. PURPOSE: The current study examined two socially based variables and a broader measure of pain interference as mediators of the relationships between perceived injustice and both anger and pain intensity in a sample of 302 patients in a tertiary care pain clinic setting. METHODS: Data from the Collaborative Health Outcomes Information Registry (CHOIR) were analyzed using cross-sectional path modeling analyses to examine social isolation, satisfaction with social roles and activities, and pain-related interference as potential mediators of the relationships between perceived injustice and both anger and pain intensity. RESULTS: When modeled simultaneously, ratings of social isolation mediated the relationship between perceived injustice and anger, while pain-related interference and social satisfaction did not. Neither social variable was found to mediate the relationship between perceived injustice and pain intensity, however. CONCLUSIONS: The current findings highlight the strongly interpersonal nature of perceived injustice and anger in chronic pain, though these effects do not appear to extend to the intensity of pain itself. Nevertheless, the results highlight the need for interventions that ameliorate both maladaptive cognitive appraisal of pain and pain-related disruptions in social relationships.
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 | 0.009 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".