Factors involved in patients’ perceptions of self-improvement after chronic pain treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients' self-reported levels of improvement after having attended a chronic pain management program can provide a subjective rating of how successful they perceive they were at accomplishing their goals in the program. Past studies have demonstrated that successful patients differ from less successful ones on several cognitive-behavioral factors such as coping strategies over physical characteristics such as pain intensity. AIMS: This study explored factors that determine patients' perceptions of self-improvement after undergoing chronic pain treatment in a pain management program. METHODS: = 174) underwent a 4-week, interdisciplinary, multimodal, chronic pain management program at a hospital located in southern Ontario. Questionnaire packages that evaluate pain intensity, pain-related disability, emotional distress (e.g., depression, anxiety, catastrophizing), acceptance of pain (activity engagement and pain willingness), readiness to change, and use of adaptive or maladaptive coping strategies were completed by patients at admission and discharge. Participants were grouped into one of three categories depending on their rating of self-improvement on the Self-Evaluation Scale (SES). The groups were compared on the magnitude of change they reported on the variables mentioned above. RESULTS: Changes in emotional distress, general health, readiness to change, activity engagement, and adaptive coping strategies (e.g., task persistence, pacing, and seeking social support) were significantly associated with differences in ratings of self-improvement. CONCLUSIONS: This study provided insight into what patients value most when rating their self-improvement, which can then be used to facilitate increased patient success and satisfaction with treatment.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".