Concept analysis: Resilience in young women with chronic pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this article is to define the concept of resilience in the context of chronic pain, while presenting a historical background of resilience. Resilience in young women with chronic pain is discussed where findings exist. Chronic pain places a considerable burden on individual and societal health; resilience is critical to chronic pain management. Enhancing understanding of the concept of resilience can promote resilience and aid in early recognition of impaired coping. Rodgers's evolutionary method of concept analysis was used. Using CINAHL, PubMed, and Google Scholar databases, articles published from 1979 to 2020 were analyzed to identify conceptual components of resilience. We reviewed included articles to determine surrogate terms, relevant uses of the concept, attributes, references of the concept, antecedents, consequences, and related concepts. Resilience in the context of chronic pain is a lifelong process of positive adaption and thriving despite adversity. Components of Rodgers's evolutionary method are identified for the concept. Further research on resilience in young women with chronic pain is needed, given the current lack of literature. Developing nursing interventions to foster resilience is important to promote long-term, effective self-management of individuals living with chronic pain.
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 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".