MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2540347974 · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01689

How Perceived Pain Influence Sleep and Mood More Than The Reverse: A Novel, Exploratory Study with Patients Awaiting Total Hip Arthroplasty

2016· article· en· W2540347974 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tone Blågestad, Ståle Pallesen, Janne Grønli, Nicole K. Y. Tang, Inger Hilde Nordhus

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHaukeland UniversitetssjukehusDiakonhjemmetUniversitetet i BergenKavli Foundation
KeywordsMoodAnxietyInsomniaChronic painDepression (economics)PsychologyPain catastrophizingPhysical therapyMcGill Pain QuestionnaireHospital Anxiety and Depression ScaleSleep (system call)Clinical psychologyMedicinePsychiatryVisual analogue scale

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: Attributions about how comorbid symptoms worsen or improve each other are central cognitive components of chronic pain that are shown to facilitate or impede the recovery process. Still, these attributions have been poorly illuminated in chronic pain patients. The present study explored perceptions of how sleep, pain and mood influence each other in patients awaiting total hip arthroplasty. Design and Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 291 patients (mean age 67.8, 65.3% female) rated 12 statements about how much a given symptom (pain, sleep, mood) changed when another symptom (pain, sleep, mood) worsened or improved on a response scale ranging from much worse (-2) via no change (0) to much better (2). Sleep (Bergen Insomnia Scale), pain (McGill Pain Questionnaire), anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) were assessed as background variables. Results: Of the patients in the study, 56% reported symptoms indicating insomnia. Anxiety and depression were indicated in 16% and 10%, respectively. Over 80% rated their pain as horrible/unbearable and reported that pain occurred always/daily. When experiencing increased pain, a majority perceived that sleep (90%) and mood (70%) worsened, whilst experiencing reduced pain improved sleep and mood in 50%. Poor sleep increased pain and worsened mood in 45% and 60% of the patients, respectively. Better sleep was perceived to reduce pain and improve mood in 50%. Worsened mood increased pain (46%) and worsened sleep (52%). Improved mood decreased pain and improved sleep in 25% and 35%, respectively. Discussion: In this study, a novel approach was used to investigate perceptions of reciprocal relationships between symptoms. We found that total hip arthroplasty patients perceived interrelationships between pain, sleep and mood. These perceived interrelations were stronger when symptoms worsened than when symptoms improved. They also held stronger beliefs about the effect of pain on sleep and mood, than the effect of sleep and mood on pain. Attributions are central in illness perception and ultimately affects illness behaviour. For patients who perceive symptoms to interrelate, the door has already been opened to utilize these attributions in treatments aiming to disrupt vicious cycles, hence supporting the use of multimodal treatments.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.250 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PsychologySame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207