An Evaluation of Sex Differences in Patients With Chronic Pain Undergoing an Interdisciplinary Pain Treatment Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine if there are sex differences in a sample of patients participating in a 4-week interdisciplinary pain treatment program in (1) pretreatment pain intensity, physical function, psychological function, pain beliefs, kinesiophobia, pain catastrophizing, and activity management patterns; and (2) treatment response. METHODS: Seventy-two men and 130 women with chronic pain completed study measures. Analyses of covariance (ANCOVAs) were performed to compare men and women on pretreatment measures. Repeated-measures ANCOVAs were used to compare both sexes on 3 treatment outcomes (pain intensity, physical function, and depressive symptoms). RESULTS: Before treatment, compared to women, men reported higher levels of kinesiophobia, were more likely to view their pain as being harmful, and used more activity pacing when doing daily activities. Women were more likely to use an overdoing activity pattern than men. No sex differences emerged for pretreatment pain intensity, physical function, psychological function, catastrophizing, activity avoidance, or measures of other pain-related beliefs. At posttreatment, women reported more improvements in pain intensity and physical function compared to men, while both sexes reported similar reductions in depressive symptoms. All effect sizes for statistically significant findings were of small to moderate magnitude. DISCUSSION: The results of this study suggest that men and women have a comparable profile with respect to the overall burden of chronic pain. Nevertheless, sex differences were found for certain pain beliefs and coping styles. Women appear to reap more benefits from the interdisciplinary pain management program than men. These findings indicate that further research to develop sex-specific assessment procedures and tailored pain treatments may be warranted.
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) | 0.004 | 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".