Evaluation of a Functional Restoration Program at Fort Bliss Interdisciplinary Pain Management Clinic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In partnership with the Veterans Health Administration, in 2010, the Department of Defense/Veterans Health Administration Pain Management Task Force Final Report recommended a comprehensive pain management plan. Consequently, each Army medical center established an Interdisciplinary Pain Management Clinic (IPMC) for pain treatment, and each IPMC implements a multidisciplinary outpatient functional restoration program (FRP) as an alternative to or in addition to pharmacological therapy. This article reports our first-year FRP results at William Beaumont Army Medical Center IPMC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The FRP is designed to improve the participants' functionality and quality of life, both personally and professionally. Service members with chronic pain were evaluated for psychological and physical clearance before enrollment in an intense and structured FRP for 8 hours a day over 3 weeks. The program focused on physical and occupational exercises, yoga, acupuncture, and educational classes regarding pain medications, nutrition, and coping skills. The resulting data were analyzed using paired two-tailed t-tests with a predetermined significance level of 0.05 to examine the participants' mean changes upon completion of the FRP. RESULTS: The pre-post comparison indicated significant improvement after completion of the FRP. The fear-avoidance of physical activities and the fear of movement scores were reduced significantly (P < 0.05); the Canadian occupational performance and satisfaction, physical strength and endurance were improved significantly (P < 0.0001) in sit-to-stand, plank balance, lifting and carrying, and 10-minute 7-to-1 Pyramid tests; however, fear-avoidance of work was not significantly reduced (P = 0.2319). CONCLUSIONS: Because of the lack of randomization and the small number of subjects (N = 32, 7 cohorts), unknown sources of bias may have influenced the results. Despite these limitations, the results from this report support the program's effectiveness and are consistent with the outcomes from FRP programs in other military facilities and in civilian studies.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".