Comparison of the Effectiveness of Positivist Psychotherapy with Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy on Pain Perception of Males with Chronic Low-Back Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Chronic low-back pain is one of the psycho-physiological disorders with a high prevalence, resulting in severe health and economic consequences. Therefore, this study aims to compare the effectiveness of positive psychotherapy with cognitive-behavioral therapy on pain perception in males with chronic low-back pain. Materials and Methods: This study was a quasi-experimental study with pretest, posttest, and control group with 2 months follow-up. The statistical population included all men with chronic low-back pain referred to the Trauma and Pain Clinic of the Healing Neuroscience Research Center at Khatam Ol-Anbia Hospital in Tehran in 2019. Using the available sampling method, 45people were selected and randomly assigned to three equal groups. Therapeutic interventions for each treatment approach were applied in 8 sessions once a week, and each session lasted 90minutes for the experimental groups; however, the control group did not receive any intervention. A researcher-made demographic information checklist and McGill pain questionnaire were used to collect data. Data were analyzed by descriptive statistics and repeated-measures analysis of variance. Results: There was a significant difference in the linear composition of the pain perception variables, as well as its dimensions, including pain sensory, affective, evaluative, and miscellaneous in terms of group membership at the three stages of pretest, posttest, and follow-up, and the interactive effect of the group and time (p 0.05). Conclusion: Positive psychotherapy and cognitive-behavioral therapy effectively improve pain perception in patients with chronic low-back pain. Thus, these programs can be recommended as adjunctive therapy to trauma and pain clinics.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".