The Effect of Psychological Interventions on the Prevention of Chronic Pain in Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Up to 50% of patients develop high-impact chronic pain after an acute care experience and many psychological variables have been identified in this process. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to assess the effect of psychological interventions within 3 months after pain onset. METHODS: We searched databases for articles published from databases inceptions until July 2019. We used standardized mean differences with 95% confidence intervals to assess treatment effect. RESULTS: In all, 18 trials were found eligible; 11 of which were included in the meta-analyses. Trials were mainly performed in back pain patients in the middle to late adulthood. Regarding pain intensity, the effect of psychological interventions compared with standard treatments was nonsignificant at 3, 6, and 12 months. We found a moderate significant effect size in favor of psychological interventions compared with standard treatments with regard to disability at 12 months and a small significant effect with regard to coping with pain at 3 months when compared with information alone. Most of meta-analysis findings were associated with a low level of evidence. DISCUSSION: This systematic review and meta-analysis showed no significant effect of psychological interventions on pain intensity. A positive and significant trend related to these interventions was shown on disability and coping with pain, when compared with standard treatment and information, respectively. However, these findings must be interpreted with caution considering the limited sample of trials. More rigorous randomized controlled trials performed in patients with a high-risk psychological profile are required to elucidate the efficacy of psychological interventions in preventing 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 | 0.009 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".