Effectiveness evaluation of the psychological support inclusion in the correction of pain syndrome in patients with movement disorders at the stage of medical rehabilitation using the virtual reality technology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Evaluation of the comparative effectiveness of various methods of psychological support in the correction of pain syndrome in patients with degenerative-dystrophic diseases of big joints and spine in the process of medical rehabilitation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In conditions of hospital, the 70 patients with degenerative-dystrophic diseases of the big joints and spine who received drug and non-drug treatment were examined. The dynamics of the psycho-emotional state, subjective assessment of well-being and pain was studied in three groups: the main group (24 patients) where the psycho-correction plan included classes with a medical psychologist using a high-tech VR tool - «Vive Focus Plus EEA virtual reality helmet». A comparison group (24 patients) who received a standard format of psychological support within the patient-centered approach. The control group (22 patients) where only psycho-diagnostic measures were carried out. The «Tamp Kinesiophobia Scale», «Visual Analogue Scale of Well-Being Evaluation», «McGill Pain Questionnaire» were used as diagnostic tools. When comparing the effects of the interventions the nociceptive or mixed nature of pain was taken into account. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: It has been shown that psychological support improves the effectiveness of pain therapy while the inclusion of a high-tech VR tool in psycho-correctional programs is expedient for overcoming the fear of movement and pain of neuropathic and mixed genesis but ineffective for relieving nociceptive pain, i.e. pain where there is no psychological component.
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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".