Effect of self-management on life quality of patient with chronic pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To study the effect of self-management on life quality of patient with chronic pain.Methods Totals of 80 hospitalized patients who fit the diagnostic criteria for choric pain were randomly divided into the observation group and the control group,each with 40 cases.Both groups received conventional life care,while the observation group was given health education and skill training of self-management in addition.Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ) and Short Form Quality of Life Questionnaire-12 (SF-12) were used to evaluate the intervention effect of two groups.Results There was no statistically significant difference of SF-MPQ and SF-12 between two groups before intervention (P ＞ 0.05).3 months after selfmanagement,the scores of PRI,emotional items,VAS and PPI were respectively (12.5 ±3.8),(6.3 ±2.9),(2.7 ± 3.8),(1.5 ± 1.9) in the observation group,and (22.9 ± 3.5),(9.0 ± 1.5),(4.7 ± 2.3),(2.5 ±2.0)in the control group,and the differences were statistically significant (t =11.08,9.07,8.17,8.22,respectively;P ＜ 0.05).There were also statistically significant differences in 8 dimensions of SF-12 scale after intervention,except for body pain (P ＜ 0.05).Conclusions Self-management can effectively improve the quality of life of patient with chronic pain. Key words: Pain; Quality of life; Self-management
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".