The Impact of Perceived Injustice on Pain-related Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Perceived injustice (PI) has been identified as an important risk factor for pain-related outcomes. To date, research has shown that pain acceptance and anger are mediators of the association between PI and pain-related outcomes. However, a combined conceptual model that addresses the interrelationships between these variables is currently lacking. Therefore, the current study aimed to examine the potential mediating roles of pain acceptance and anger on the association between PI and adverse pain-related outcomes (physical function, pain intensity, opioid use status). MATERIALS AND METHOD: This cross-sectional study used a sample of 354 patients with chronic pain being treated at a tertiary pain treatment center. Participants completed measures of PI, pain acceptance, anger, physical function, pain intensity, and opioid use status. Mediation analyses were used to examine the impact of pain acceptance and anger on the association between PI and pain-related outcomes. RESULTS: Examination of the specific indirect effects revealed that pain acceptance fully mediated the relationship between PI and physical function, as well as the relationship between PI and opioid use status. Pain acceptance emerged as a partial mediator of the relationship between PI and pain intensity. DISCUSSION: This is the first study to provide a combined conceptual model investigating the mediating roles of pain acceptance and anger on the relationship between PI and pain outcomes. On the basis of our findings, low levels of pain acceptance associated with PI may help explain the association between PI and adverse pain outcomes. Clinical and theoretical implications are discussed.
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 | 0.017 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".