Differences in psychosocial responses to pain between sufficiently and insufficiently active adults with arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Adults with arthritis struggle to meet the physical activity recommendation for disease self-management. Identifying psychosocial factors that differentiate adults who meet (sufficiently active) or do not meet (insufficiently active) the recommendation is needed. This study sought to examine differences in psychosocial responses to arthritis pain among adults who were sufficiently or insufficiently active. DESIGN: = 49.75 ± 13.88 years) who completed two online surveys: (1) baseline: pain and psychosocial responses to pain and (2) two weeks later: physical activity. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Psychosocial responses examined in this study were psychological flexibility in response to pain, pain anxiety and maladaptive responses to pain anxiety. RESULTS: A between-groups MANCOVA comparing sufficiently active (n = 87) to insufficiently active (n = 49) participants on psychosocial responses, after controlling for pain intensity, was significant (p = .005). Follow-up ANOVA's revealed that sufficiently active participants reported significantly higher psychological flexibility and used maladaptive responses less often compared to insufficiently active participants (p's < .05). CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide preliminary insight into the psychosocial profile of adults at risk for nonadherence due to their responses to arthritis 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; 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".