Effects of internet-based pain coping skills training before home exercise for individuals with hip osteoarthritis (HOPE trial): a randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This assessor-, therapist-, and participant-blinded randomised controlled trial evaluated the effects of an automated internet-based pain coping skills training (PCST) program before home exercise for people with clinically diagnosed hip osteoarthritis. One hundred forty-four people were randomised to either the PCST group or the comparator group. In the first 8 weeks, the PCST group received online education and PCST, whereas the comparison group received online education only. From weeks 8 to 24, both groups visited a physiotherapist 5 times for home exercise prescription. Assessments were performed at baseline, 8, 24, and 52 weeks. Primary outcomes were hip pain on walking (11-point numerical rating scale) and physical function (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index [WOMAC]) at 24 weeks. Secondary outcomes were other measures of pain, quality-of-life, global change, self-efficacy, pain coping, pain catastrophizing, depression, anxiety, stress, physical activity, and adverse events. Primary outcomes were completed by 137 (95%), 131 (91%), and 127 (88%) participants at 8, 24, and 52 weeks, respectively. There were no significant between-group differences in primary outcomes at week 24 (change in: walking pain [mean difference 0.5 units; 95% confidence interval, -0.3 to 1.3] and function [-0.9 units; 95% confidence interval, -4.8 to 2.9]), with both groups showing clinically relevant improvements. At week 8, the PCST group had greater improvements in function, pain coping, and global improvement than comparison. Greater pain coping improvements persisted at 24 and 52 weeks. In summary, online PCST immediately improved pain coping and function but did not confer additional benefits to a subsequent exercise program, despite sustained pain coping improvements.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".