Are attitudes about pain related to coping strategies used by adolescents in the community?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and aims To better understand the associations between pain beliefs and pain coping strategies in a sample of community adolescents. Methods Four hundred and thirty-four adolescents were asked to complete measures of physical function, pain-related beliefs and use of pain coping strategies. A series of three hierarchical regression analyses were performed. Results Approach coping strategies demonstrated significant and positive associations with beliefs about the importance of solicitousness responding and control over pain. Problem-focused avoidance coping strategies evidenced a negative association with the belief of being disabled by pain, and a positive association with the importance of exercise. Emotion-focused avoidance coping strategies showed significant and positive associations with beliefs about being disabled by pain and that emotions affect pain, and negative associations with beliefs about control over pain and the appropriateness of pain medications. Conclusions The findings provide important new information regarding the potential role that beliefs could play as predictors of pain coping in adolescents living in the community. Prospective studies are needed to evaluate the possible causal role that beliefs play in decisions to use what pain coping strategy and under what circumstances. Implications The role that pain beliefs and coping strategies play in the adjustment to pain in adolescents in the community has both similarities to and differences with the role that these factors play in adolescent clinical populations. This information can guide the development of community-based treatment programs for adolescents with 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 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 | 0.013 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".