Effects of a pain management programme on occupational performance are influenced by gains in self-efficacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The perceived capacity to perform particular activities or skills (i.e. self-efficacy) is paramount in occupational therapy and is thought to be reinforced by actual functional capacity. This study examined whether changes in self-efficacy or confidence to lift weighted items influences changes in occupational performance and disability levels in patients attending a cognitive behavioural therapy pain management programme. Method Clients attending an 8-week cognitive behavioural therapy pain management programme ( N = 125) completed questionnaires before treatment, at discharge, and at 3-month and 6-month reviews, including measures of pain self-efficacy, disability and self-perceived performance and satisfaction using the Canadian occupational performance measure. Analyses examined disability and occupational performance over time, adjusting for baseline characteristics (age, sex, education), and sought to determine whether self-efficacy or lifting confidence influenced the outcomes. Results The level of disability, lifting confidence, self-efficacy and occupational performance all improved over time; however, only occupational performance and lifting confidence maintained improvements up to the 6-month review. Self-efficacy had a greater impact on occupational performance than lifting confidence.
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 | 0.008 |
| 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".