Self-regulatory efficacy to overcome chronic pain and related barriers: A potential mediator of the psychological flexibility-physical activity relationship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physical activity is considered beneficial and recommended for adults living with chronic pain. More information is needed to identify modifiable factors that affect their rates of physical activity. Two complementary, modifiable, adaptive responses to chronic pain that are related to levels of physical activity are psychological flexibility and self-regulatory efficacy (i.e., confidence) to overcome pain and related barriers to physical activity (SRE-pain). We wondered whether SRE-pain could be a potential mediator between psychological flexibility and physical activity. Thus, we prospectively examined whether SRE-pain mediated the psychological flexibility – physical activity relationship among adults living with chronic pain (i.e., pain for > 6+ months). Participants (N = 193) completed online surveys at baseline, two weeks and four weeks (Time 1 through 3 respectively). Baron and Kenny's (1986) regression steps for testing mediation were conducted. The final hierarchical multiple regression revealed that the relationship between Time 1 psychological flexibility and Time 3 physical activity was reduced after controlling for Time 2 SRE-pain, F(2, 191) = 17.40, p < .001, accounting for 14% of the variance in Time 3 physical activity. A follow-up Sobel test confirmed that the reduction in that relation was statistically significant (Sobel z = 4.65, p < .001). Findings illustrated that SRE-pain could partially mediate the prospective relationship between psychological flexibility and later physical activity. The identification of a possible modifiable mechanism (mediator) that might allow adults living with chronic pain to be more flexible in their attempts to be active suggests future research should test this causal idea.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".