Pain catastrophizing mediates rapid benefits of accessing in‐person chiropractic care during the COVID‐19 lockdown
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic forced the Spanish government to declare a state of emergency. A stringent lockdown was enforced, restricting access to healthcare services, including chiropractic. Reduced access to care provision in combination with psychological stress, social isolation and physical inactivity during the lockdown were shown to negatively influence pain conditions. However, data on strategies to mitigate the impact of the pandemic on these conditions are lacking. METHODS: Upon easing of restrictions in May 2020, 51 chiropractic clinics throughout Spain pseudo-randomly invited patients, recruiting a total of 385 participants. During a 14-day period, participants were exposed to in-person chiropractic care in either one (n = 177) or multiple encounters (n = 109) or to no care (n = 99). The effects of access to chiropractic care on patients' pain-related and psychological outcomes were assessed online through validated self-reported questionnaires before and after the period of care. Coprimary outcomes included pain intensity, pain interference and pain cognitions. RESULTS: When comparing to participants without access to care, pain intensity and interference were significantly decreased at follow-up, irrespective of the number of encounters. Kinesiophobia was also significantly reduced at follow-up, though only after multiple encounters. The relationship between fear of movement, changes in pain intensity and interference was mediated by catastrophizing. CONCLUSION: Access to in-person chiropractic care may provide pain relief, associated with reductions in interference and pain cognitions. Prioritizing in-person care for patients with maladaptive pain cognitions may help dampen the detrimental consequences of the pandemic on physical and psychological well-being.
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 | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".