Evaluation of chronic pain and physical activity training on providers' pain knowledge and self-efficacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Twenty percent of Canadian adults experience chronic pain. Physical activity (PA) is an effective management strategy, yet most adults with chronic pain struggle to participate. In pilot work, we found that adults with chronic pain preferred receiving integrated information on PA and chronic pain from PA providers, including fitness instructors and personal trainers. However, PA providers do not receive integrated training (instruction on pain, PA, adherence-promoting self-regulatory skills) during certification or continuing education opportunities. This feasibility study aimed to evaluate whether a face-to-face integrated training session for PA providers increased their pain knowledge and self-efficacy to educate and instruct adults with chronic pain on being physically active. Methods. Forty-eight PA providers (Mage = 44.38 ± 11.03 years) attended 1 of 4, 3-hour training sessions offered in three communities. Pre- and post-training surveys assessed pain knowledge, self-efficacy, and demographics. A mixed multivariate analysis of variance compared pre- vs post-training scores by training location. Results. The within-subjects effect was significant (p .05). Conclusion. Promising feasibility findings warrant future pilot RCT investigation to evaluate the impact of the integrated training among a larger, more representative sample of PA providers. If successful, there is potential for widespread adoption in collaboration with PA provider certification organizations.Acknowledgments: The research was funded by a Saskatchewan Health Research Foundation, Collaborative Innovation Development Grant (SHRF 3969), and a Community Initiatives Fund, Community Programs Grant (CIF:16:971). The researchers extend a sincere 'thank you' to the participants who made this research possible.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.005 | 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".