Musculoskeletal Pain and Social Support in Older Adults of a Sample in Bucaramanga
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective. The aim of this study was to determine the relation between clinical characteristics of musculoskeletal pain and the social support. Method. A non experimental method was used, with a quantitative approach, cross-sectional and correlational scope, in a sample with 70 or older adults –women and menwho participate of selfhelp groups in Bucaramanga, sample which was applied with the abbreviated version McGill Pain Questionnaire and the Social Support Questionnaire. Results. It was found that 59% of the participants describe the pain as uncomfortable, and the 57% as internal, whereas, 33% perceive emotional support and the 39% a practical support in a moderate manner. No correlation was found between the general emotional support and pain intensity index. Conclusion. It is found that there is no significant correlation between variables, however, 1 Producto del proyecto de investigacion “Factores psicosociales en el dolor osteomuscular en adultos mayores. Un estudio transcultural”. Avalado y financiado por la Direccion General de Investigaciones (DGI) de la Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana Seccional Bucaramanga, con el codigo 096-03153100 2 Psicologa 3 Doctoranda en Ciencias Psicologicas de la Universidad de la Habana, Cuba. Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana, Seccional Bucaramanga, kilometro 7 via Piedecuesta. Correo de correspondencia: ara.cerquera@upb.edu.co LEIDY JOHANNA PLATA OSMA Y ARA MERCEDES CERQUERA CORDOBA 126 it is necessary to note that these kind of studies will help strengthen the understanding of the perception of pain and the variables that should be taken into account for its proper clinical management.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".