Stress in patients diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis compared to chronic pain.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE: To examine potential differences in cognitions and traitlike factors that relate to stress among individuals diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) compared to those with chronic pain (CP). Research Method/Design: A cross-sectional study was conducted with participants recruited from outpatient rheumatology and CP clinics. Participants completed self-report questionnaires of demographics, disease characteristics, cognitions, and traitlike constructs. Correlates of patient stress were considered using hierarchical multiple regression. RESULTS: Analyses included 445 participants: 226 patients diagnosed with RA and 229 patients diagnosed with CP. In participants with RA, excessive worrying and anxiety sensitivity were independently associated with feeling stressed (p < .001), and 29% of the variance in stress scores was explained after adjusting for age, gender, years of education, and average pain intensity. In participants with CP, fear of relaxation, anxiety sensitivity, and pain catastrophizing were independently associated with feeling stressed (p < .001), and 31% of variance in stress scores was explained after adjusting for age, gender, years of education, and average pain intensity. Comparison of the fit of the model in both groups of patients through use of Fisher's z test found that the set of variables did similarly well for both patients with RA and those with CP, with no significant difference between R2 values (z = .88, p = .388). CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS: This study establishes cognitions and traitlike factors that are related to reports of stress among patients with RA and CP. These factors should be considered when treating and developing interventions for patients who experience increased feelings of stress. (PsycINFO Database Record
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".