MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2750987405 · doi:10.2196/resprot.8205

Influence of Fear of Pain and Coping Strategies on Health-Related Quality of Life and Patient-Anticipated Outcomes in Patients With Chronic Pain: Cross-Sectional Study Protocol

2017· article· en· W2750987405 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Manasi Murthy Mittinty, David S. Brennan, Cameron L. Randall, Daniel W. McNeil, Murthy Mittinty, Lisa Jamieson

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCross-sectional studyChronic painMedicineCoping (psychology)Quality of life (healthcare)Health related quality of lifePhysical therapyClinical psychologyNursingDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Fear of pain and coping strategies are emotional-behavioral responses to pain and are known to play an important role in the development and maintenance of pain. It is highly likely that fear of pain and coping strategies influence each other, potentially affecting the course of chronic pain. To our knowledge, the relationship between pain, fear of pain and coping strategies, and how they influence patient-anticipated outcomes and health-related quality of life, have not been investigated. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study are to test (1) if both fear of pain and/or coping strategies are sufficient causes for maintaining pain; and (2) whether fear of pain influences coping strategies and pain intensity. The study will also examine the impact of fear of pain and coping strategies on health-related quality of life and patient-anticipated outcomes. METHODS: The cross-sectional study will be conducted using an online survey. The Fear of Pain Questionnaire-III (FPQ-III), the Brief Coping Inventory (COPE), and EuroQoL-5d (EQ-5D) validated questionnaires will be used to collect data. Information pertaining to demographic factors, pain-related factors, and patient-anticipated outcomes will also be collected. The study has ethics approval from the Human Research Ethics Committee of the University of Adelaide. Study participants will be individuals aged 18 years and above who are experiencing chronic pain (ie, pain lasting more than 6 months). Effect measure modification technique (EMMM) will be used to examine if fear of pain acts as a moderator or mediator between coping strategies and pain. Simple and multinomial logistic regression analysis will be used to examine the effect of fear of pain and coping strategies on health-related quality of life and patient-anticipated outcomes. RESULTS: Recruitment began July 2017 and it is anticipated that data collection will be completed by October 2017. Findings from this study will help to extend our understanding of fear of pain and coping strategies, their interaction, and their impact on health-related quality of life and patient-anticipated outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Fear of pain and coping strategies have significant influence on the experience of chronic pain and its course. This study will help enhance our understanding of the relationship between fear of pain and coping strategies, which may help in developing patient-centered care practices.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.145
GPT teacher head0.544
Teacher spread0.398 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations6
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research Protocols→Same topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation→French-language works237,207→