Religious Beliefs and Attitudes in Relation to Pain, Pain-Related Beliefs, Function, and Coping in Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain: A Systematic Review.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The biopsychosocial-spiritual model recognizes the impact of religious factors in modulating the experience of pain. Religious beliefs are factors that can influence perceptions, emotions, and behavior, all of which have important implications on health, pain experience, and treatment outcomes. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to identify if and how religious beliefs and attitudes can influence pain intensity, pain interference, pain-related beliefs and cognitions, emotions, and coping among patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: This systematic review was conducted and reported, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines (PRISMA). An electronic search was conducted in 4 online databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of science, and PsychArticles) and complemented with a hand search (PROSPERO registry: CRD42020161289). Two reviewers independently performed eligibility screening, risk of bias assessment, and data extraction. The risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Nine cross-sectional studies and one case-control study were included in the review. The methodological quality of the included studies ranged from low to high. The results gathered regarding the association between religiosity and pain intensity, disability, or pain interference were found to be conflicting. Limited evidence suggests that religiosity is positively associated with worse pain-related beliefs and cognitions, worse pain-related emotion, and better pain acceptance. There is insufficient data available to support the claim that religiosity is negatively associated with physical functioning and pain-related self-efficacy in people with chronic musculoskeletal pain. LIMITATIONS: The number of included studies was small, with a low level of evidence, and a possible risk of bias. CONCLUSION: This systematic review shows low evidence and conflicting results for the presence of associations between religiosity and different pain domains such as pain intensity, disability, and pain-related cognitions or emotions in people with chronic musculoskeletal 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 | 0.008 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".