Interpretations of partners’ responses to pain behaviours: Perspectives of patients and partners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Partner's responses to pain behaviours play a pivotal role in the patient's adjustment. This study aims to further our knowledge regarding patients' and partners' interpretation of partners' responses to pain behaviours, and the possible discrepancies between patients' and partners' perceptions. Further, this study examines patients' preferred responses to pain behaviours and possible discrepancies between received and preferred responses to pain behaviours. DESIGN: A qualitative research design based on a semi-structured in-depth interview. METHODS: Patients with chronic low back pain and their partners (n = 54) were recruited through purposive sampling and interviewed. Data were analysed based on an inductive analytic approach. RESULTS: Patients as well as partners indicated a number of different interpretations of partners' responses to pain behaviours, including invalidation, relieving pain, validation, encouragement, caregiving exhaustion, and expressing resentment. Patients and partners revealed similarities in the interpretation of response categories that they associated with validation, invalidation, and expressing resentment. Discrepancies between patients and partners indicated that partners interpreted some responses as caused by caregiving exhaustion while patients did not. Patients perceived partner responses that included the active involvement of the partner (e.g., encouraging pain talk) more positively than responses that showed less active involvement of the partner. CONCLUSION: Patients and partners are likely to make various interpretations of a certain partner response to pain behaviours. Our findings underscore that patients' interpretation about a certain behaviour might determine whether that behaviour is rated as desirable or aversive.
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 | 0.011 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".