Occupational Performance of Women with Chronic Pelvic Pain and the Potential of Coping as an Unassisted Intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To assess the satisfaction and occupational performance of women with chronic pelvic pain and to discuss unassisted intervention strategies by the occupational therapist for the care of these patients. Methods: A case-control study was conducted on 75 women with chronic pelvic pain and 75 apparently healthy women. The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the institution and all subjects gave written informed consent to participate. Pain intensity was determined using a visual analogue scale and each patient was submitted to psycho-metric assessment using the Patient Health Questionnaire, the Self-Reporting Questionnaire of Psychiatric Screening and the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophofobia in their Brazilian version. The main outcomes regarding occupational performance and satisfaction were evaluated using the Canadian Measure of Occupational Performance. Results: The performance and satisfaction scores of women with chronic pelvic pain were significantly lower than those of healthy women. The presence of pain and kinesophobia was directly and independently correlated with low performance and satisfaction scores regardless of ethnicity, marital status, schooling, or psychometric scores. Conclusion: women with chronic pelvic pain present significant impairment of satisfaction and occupational performance. Coping is a potential unassisted intervention strategy to be applied to this population by occupational therapists.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".