"I stay in bed, sometimes all day." A qualitative study exploring lived experiences of persons with disabling low back pain.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To explore the lived experiences of persons with low back pain (LBP) and disability within the context of the International Classification of Function, Disability and Health (ICF) framework. METHODS: Qualitative study using focus group methodology. We stratified LBP patients into two low (n=9) and one high disability (n=3) groups. Transcript-based thematic analysis was conducted through an interpretivist lens. RESULTS: Four themes emerged: Invisibility, Ambivalence, Social isolation, and Stigmatization and marginalization. Participants described how environmental factors affected how they experienced disability and how their awareness of people's attitudes affected personal factors and participation in social activities. High disability participants experienced challenges with self-care, employment, and activities. The invisibility of LBP and status loss contributed to depressive symptoms. CONCLUSION: LBP patients experience physical, social, economic and emotional disability. Our findings highlight the interaction between domains of the ICF framework and the importance of considering these perspectives when managing LBP patients with varying levels of disability.
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 | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".