Pain coping strategies with functional disability and quality of life in patients with knee osteoarthritis in Lagos, Nigeria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The significant impact of coping strategies on the experience of pain and disease outcome has been associated with cultural and environmental factors. There is a dearth of studies in this environment on the association of coping strategies with clinical symptoms in patients with OA knee. This study investigated the relationship among pain coping strategy, functional disability, pain and quality of life among patients with knee osteoarthritis in Lagos, Nigeria. Involved were 102 participants diagnosed with either bilateral or unilateral Knee OA. Numerical pain rating scale (NPRS), The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC osteoarthritis index), Pain coping inventory (PCI) and SF-36 Health survey were used to evaluate participants’ pain, functional disability, pain coping strategy and quality of life (QoL) respectively. Results showed a passive pain coping index (PPCI) score of 45.89±6.49 as against 26.5±43.61 for the active pain coping index (APCI). PPC strategies were significantly related positively with pain and functional disability (p<0.001; r = 0.380 and p= 0.001; r=0.334 respectively) but correlated negatively (p<0.001) with all domains of QoL except for mental health. On the other hand, APC strategies correlated negatively with pain and functional disability (p=0.092; r = -0.168 and p= 0.334; r= -0.131). Our findings thus suggest a significant association between PPCS and severe pain, functional disability and poor QoL while APCS was associated with a better quality of life in patients with knee OA. It is thus suggested that active pain coping strategies be incorporated into the management of patients with OA knee.Keywords: Pain coping strategy, Knee osteoarthritis, Pain coping index, Numerical pain rating scale
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".