Quality of life and relationships in chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome: models of self-regulation and psychosocial risk factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) is a condition marked by persistent pain in the perineum, pelvic area, and/or genitalia. The etiology of CP/CPPS remains unknown, making it a difficult to diagnose and to treat. CP/CPPS should not be viewed solely as a physical phenomenon, as psychological and social factors impact the patient’s experience of the disease. Instead, examining CP/CPPS from a biopsychosocial perspective lets us understand illness as a dynamic process that integrates biological, psychological, and social variables that can perpetuate the patient’s pain experience. This chapter is aimed at exploring biopsychosocial factors like catastrophizing, depression, and social relationships that affect quality of life in men living with CP/CPPS. These factors all come together under the umbrella of self-regulation theory and how patients with CP/CPPS cope with their symptoms and their pain. The self-regulation theory suggests that the way patients cope with their illness is influenced by how illness appraisals as well as the patients’ beliefs about how to cope effectively. Psychosocial interventions targeting patients’ ability to self-regulate and cope with their symptoms are explored as a way to improve their quality of life and to help manage painful experiences. Finally, this chapter identifies other biopsychosocial factors that warrant exploration in future research. Understanding how the mechanisms of the biopsychosocial perspective can affect the experience of CP/CPPS will not result in a cure. However, understanding the way in which biopsychosocial factors interact can help inform ways of improving patient quality of life, decreasing symptom related disability, and improving coping 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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".