Beyond solicitousness: a comprehensive review on informal pain-related social support
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adults with chronic pain cite social support (SS) as an important resource. Research has mostly focused on general SS or pain-specific solicitousness, resulting in a limited understanding of the role of SS in pain experiences. Drawing on SS theoretical models, this review aimed to understand how pain-related SS has been conceptualized and measured and how its relationship with pain experiences has been investigated. Arksey and O'Malley scoping review framework guided the study. A database search (2000-2015) was conducted in PsycINFO, CINAHL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE using a combination of subject headings/keywords on pain and SS; 3864 citations were screened; 101 full texts were assessed for eligibility; references of 52 papers were hand searched. Fifty-three studies were included. Most studies were either a-theoretical or drew upon the operant conditioning model. There are several self-report measures and observational systems to operationalize pain-related SS. However, the Multidimensional Pain Inventory remains the most often used, accounting for the centrality of the concept of solicitousness in the literature. Most studies focused on individuals with chronic pain self-report of spousal pain-related SS and investigated its main effects on pain outcomes. Only a minority investigated the role of pain SS within the stress and coping process (as a buffer or mediator). Little is known about mediating pathways, contextual modulation of the effectiveness of SS exchanges, and there are practically no SS-based intervention studies. Drawing on general SS models, the main gaps in pain-related SS research are discussed and research directions for moving this literature beyond solicitousness are proposed.
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 | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".