Self-perceived burden, perceived burdensomeness, and suicidal ideation in patients with chronic pain
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Self-perceived burden and perceived burdensomeness are two apparently related constructs that have arisen independently from research in physical and mental health, respectively. Although both are associated with suicidal ideation in individuals with chronic pain, they have yet to be examined concurrently in the same group of patients.Aims: The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between the two constructs and their differential prediction of suicidal ideation.Methods: Participants were 260 outpatients of an interdisciplinary chronic pain treatment program. Each participant completed the Self-Perceived Burden Scale (SPBS), the Interpersonal Needs Questionnaire Perceived Burdensomeness Scale (INQPBS), the Beck Scale for Suicide Ideation, and the thoughts of self-harm item of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9.Results: The SPBS and the INQPBS were both unifactorial measures with good internal consistency. They correlated significantly with one another (r = 0.50, P < 0.001), as well as with scores on the two measures of suicidal ideation (rs ranging from 0.29 to 0.62, Ps < 0.001). However, the INQPBS correlated more highly with suicidal ideation than did the SPBS. In regression analyses, the INQPBS predicted unique variance in suicidal ideation after adjusting for the SPBS. Conversely, the SPBS did not contribute uniquely when the INQPBS was entered first.Conclusions: Patients with chronic pain who believe that they have become “a burden to others” are at increased risk for suicidal ideation. The conceptual similarities and differences between the constructs of self-perceived burden and perceived burdensomeness are reviewed to explain why perceived burdensomeness is the stronger predictor of this increased risk.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 | 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 it