The Mediating Role of Pain Acceptance in the Relation Between Perceived Injustice and Chronic Pain Outcomes in a Community Sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Perceived injustice has been defined as an appraisal regarding the severity and irreparability of loss associated with pain, blame, and a sense of unfairness. Recent findings suggest that perceived injustice is an important risk factor for elevated disability associated with chronic pain. However, the mechanisms by which this perception leads to disability are not well understood. Therefore, the current study aimed to examine the mediating role of pain acceptance on the relation between perceived injustice and chronic pain outcomes (pain intensity, pain-related disability, and psychological distress). METHOD: This cross-sectional study used a sample of 475 individuals from the community who report chronic pain. Participants completed the Injustice Experience Questionnaire, the Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire, a pain rating intensity scale, the Modified Brief Pain Inventory, and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. RESULTS: Results revealed significant direct links from perceived injustice to pain intensity (c'=0.416, P<0.001), disability (c'=0.891, P<0.001), and distress (c'=0.261, P<0.001), as well as indirect links from perceived injustice through acceptance of pain to pain disability (ab=0.512, P<0.001, confidence interval, 0.390-0.635) and psychological distress (ab=0.106, P<0.001, confidence interval, 0.077-0.136). DISCUSSION: Clinical and theoretical implications are discussed along with future research directions.
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 | 0.081 | 0.107 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".