Social Factors, Disability, and Depressive Symptoms in Adults With Chronic Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The primary aim of this study was to better understand the role that social factors (ie, social support, satisfaction in participation with social roles, social isolation, and self-perceived ability to perform social roles and activities) play in pain-related interference and depressive symptoms in adults with chronic pain. Moreover, this study also examined if sex exerts a moderating role in these associations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, 364 adults with chronic pain participated: 133 were university students and 231 were individuals from the community. University students completed a paper-and-pencil survey and individuals from the community responded to a web-based survey. Both surveys included the same questions assessing sociodemographic, pain characteristics, pain-related interference, depressive symptoms, and social factors. RESULTS: Only satisfaction in participation in usual social roles and self-perceived ability for participating in such social roles contributed independently, significantly, and negatively to the prediction of pain interference, whereas all 4 social factors made independent and significant contributions to the prediction of depressive symptoms. Satisfaction with participation in usual social roles, self-perceived social ability, and social support were negatively related to depressive symptoms, whereas social isolation was positively related. The results also indicated that sex moderated the associations between social factors and depressive symptoms, but not between social factors and pain interference. DISCUSSION: The study provides important new findings regarding the associations between social factors and physical and psychological functioning of individuals with chronic pain, supporting biopsychosocial models.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".