Evaluation of an interdisciplinary chronic pain program and predictors of readiness for change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background One in five Canadians experience chronic pain, and interdisciplinary pain programs are well established as the gold standard of treatment. However, not all patients are ready to engage in interdisciplinary treatment for chronic pain.Aims The aims of this study were to (1) first demonstrate changes in patient-related outcomes after attending a publicly funded 8-week interdisciplinary pain program and (2) evaluate pain-related predictors of readiness for change.Methods The institution’s research ethics board approved this study. One hundred twenty-nine patients completed questionnaires on the first and last day of attending the program. Paired sample t-tests were utilized to evaluate the changes in patient-related outcomes after attending the program, and linear regressions were utilized to evaluate pain-related predictors of the stages of change.Results Postprogram, there were significant decreases in pain-related interference, fear of pain/re-injury, pain catastrophizing, and symptoms of stress, depression, and anxiety and a significant increase in wellness-focused coping and self-efficacy. Postprogram, patients also demonstrated lower scores in precontemplation and contemplation and higher scores in action and maintenance stages of readiness for change. In predicting precontemplation, fear of pain/re-injury was the sole predictor, and self-efficacy was the sole predictor of the contemplation, action, and maintenance stages.Conclusion These results demonstrate the short-term benefits of an 8-week interdisciplinary pain program. It is suggested that preprogram interventions targeting kinesophobia for individuals who are precontemplative and self-efficacy for others may be important to facilitate patient engagement.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".