Do Pain-Related Support Preferences Moderate Relationships Between Chronic Pain Patients’ Reports of Support Received and Psychosocial Functioning?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The operant theory of chronic pain and related research suggest pain-related solicitous support promotes disability. The current study investigated the hypotheses that solicitous support is positively associated with both disability and relationship satisfaction and that these relationships are moderated by the level of desire for this type of support. METHODS: Patients with chronic pain (N = 147) and in a relationship were recruited from a multidisciplinary pain treatment center. They provided self-reports of the amount of three types of pain-related support wanted and received (i.e., solicitous, encouragement, and suppression), disability, and relationship satisfaction. RESULTS: A hierarchical regression analysis indicated that solicitous support received was not significantly associated with disability. However, a moderation effect was found regarding encouragement. Encouragement received was negatively associated with disability, and this relationship was strongest at lower levels of interest in encouragement. Solicitous support received had a large positive association with relationship satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest the influence of pain-related support is more complex than suggested by the operant conditioning model of chronic pain, which emphasizes the possible detrimental impact of solicitous support. Further research is warranted regarding the potential relationship enhancing effects of solicitous support and the influence of encouragement on disability experienced by those with chronic pain.
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 | 0.018 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".