Pre-surgery beliefs about pain and surgery as predictors of acute and chronic post-surgical pain: A prospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic pain post-surgical pain (CPSP) is common and has far-reaching negative consequences for patients, yet relatively few studies have evaluated the impact of both deficit- and resource-based beliefs about pain and surgery on subjective intensities of acute and chronic post-surgical pain. To address this issue a prospective cohort study was performed. METHOD: 259 consecutive surgery patients from general surgery, gynecology, and thoracic departments completed a self-report battery of demographics, pain experiences, and psychological factors 24 h before surgery (T1) and provided follow-up pain intensity ratings 48 h-72 h after surgery (T2), and at a 4-month follow-up (T3). RESULTS: In the hierarchical regression model for acute post-operative pain intensity, pre-surgery pain self-efficacy beliefs made a significant unique contribution independent of all other pre-surgery and surgery-related factors (i.e., age, presence of pre-surgical pain, type of anesthesia, surgery duration). In the prediction model for intensity of chronic post-surgical pain, beliefs about long-term effects of surgery had a unique impact after controlling other significant pre-surgery and surgery influences (gender, education, surgery time). CONCLUSION: Results underscored the potential utility of considering specific pre-surgery pain- and surgery-related beliefs as factors that predict patient experiences of acute and chronic post-operative 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 | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 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".