Effects of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy on Empathy 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
OBJECTIVE: Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) is effective in patients with chronic pain. However, the efficacy of CBT for impaired empathy has not been studied in this population. We investigated the effect of CBT on empathy in patients with chronic pain. METHODS: Patients with severe chronic pain were recruited. Empathy was assessed before and after CBT using the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI). The patients underwent eight sessions over the course of 1 month conducted. Additional symptoms were assessed using the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ), Beck Depression Inventory, Beck Anxiety Inventory, World Health Organization Quality of Life Scale Abbreviated Version, and the Scale for Suicide Ideation. RESULTS: A total of 26 participants were included. Pre-CBT pain severity assessed using the SF-MPQ was significantly correlated with the IRI-empathic concern subscale score (p=0.021), and the relationship remained significant after adjusting for sex, age, education level, and marital status. After CBT, the IRI-perspective-taking subscale scores (p=0.004) increased significantly and the IRI-personal distress subscale scores (p=0.013) decreased significantly in all participants. The SF-MPQ scores increased significantly (p=0.021). CONCLUSION: CBT improved empathy in patients with chronic pain independent of its effect on pain, suggesting that CBT is useful for improving interpersonal relationships in patients with chronic 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.
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 | 0.000 | 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