Is It Worth It? A Comparison of an Intensive Interdisciplinary Pain Treatment and a Multimodal Treatment for Youths With Pain-related Disability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of an intensive interdisciplinary pain treatment (IIPT) day-hospital program as compared with an outpatient multimodal treatment (MMT) for youth with chronic pain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A nonrandomized pretest posttest with control group design was used. A battery of patient-oriented measures assessing pain interference, quality of life, and depressive symptoms were completed at treatment commencement and at 3, 6, and 12 months after treatment by 44 youths enrolled in the IIPT and 138 youths engaged in the MMT, with various chronic pain conditions. Data were analyzed using longitudinal mixed-effects models. RESULTS: The main outcomes were the score difference from baseline of patient-oriented measures across 3 timepoints within 12 months of intervention initiation for both treatment groups. IIPT participants demonstrated greater improvement in pain interference, as compared with MMT at 3 and 12 months. Initially, health-related quality of life scores improved similarly in both groups, but greater improvement was seen in the MMT group at 12 months. Depressive symptom scores did not improve with either intervention. Only pain interference scores reached statistically and clinically significant difference levels. DISCUSSION: This study supports the benefits of specialized rehabilitation interventions, including both MMT and IIPT programs, for youths with chronic pain. The findings also suggest that IIPT might have a greater long-term effect for helping youths, in particular those with high pain interference scores.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".