Differences in adaptive and maladaptive psychosocial responses to chronic pain among adults with varying physical activity levels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: Chronic pain is a global public health problem that detrimentally impacts people’s health and well-being. Physical activity is beneficial and a recommended self-management strategy for adults living with chronic pain. Yet, many of them struggle to meet the public health recommendation of 150+ minutes/week of moderate–vigorous physical activity. Identifying modifiable factors related to physical activity participation is needed. Adaptive (i.e., self-regulatory efficacy to overcome pain and related barriers [SRE-pain], psychological flexibility) and maladaptive (i.e. pain anxiety) responses were the modifiable factors examined in the present study. The purpose was to investigate whether adults living with chronic pain who were sufficiently active, insufficiently active or inactive significantly differed in their adaptive and maladaptive responses to chronic pain. Methods: Adults with self-reported chronic pain for 6+ months ( N = 318) completed an online survey that measured physical activity, psychological flexibility, SRE-pain and pain anxiety. Sufficiently active ( n = 139), insufficiently active ( n = 91) and inactive ( n = 88) groups were identified. Results: A significant multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) ( p < .001) with univariate follow-up tests illustrated that the sufficiently active individuals reported the highest psychological flexibility and SRE-pain compared to insufficiently active and inactive individuals ( p’s < .001). Overall, sufficiently active participants responded the most adaptively and least maladaptively to their pain, followed by the insufficiently active. Inactive participants responded the most maladaptively. Conclusion: Identifying differences in adaptive and maladaptive responses to pain highlights possible modifiable factors to target in future physical activity intervention research that focuses on improving chronic pain 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".