From hands‐on to remote: Moderators of response to a novel self‐management telehealth programme during the <scp>COVID</scp>‐19 pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In March 2020, state-wide lockdowns were declared in many countries, including Spain. Citizens were confined to their homes and remotely supported activities were prioritized as an alternative to in-person interactions. Previous data suggest that remote and self-management interventions may be successful at reducing pain and related psychological variables. However, individual factors influencing the effectiveness of these interventions remain to be identified. We aimed to investigate the psychological and motivational factors moderating changes in pain observed in chiropractic patients undertaking a novel telehealth self-management programme. METHODS: A cohort of 208 patients from a chiropractic teaching clinic was recruited to participate in the study. Patients received telehealth consultations and individualized self-management strategies tailored for their current complaint. They were encouraged to make use of these strategies daily for 2-4 weeks, whilst rating their pain intensity, motivation and adherence. Validated questionnaires were completed online to assess catastrophizing, kinesiophobia and anxiety. RESULTS: A total of 168 patients completed the first 2 weeks of the programme, experiencing significant reductions in all variables. Kinesiophobia emerged as a key factor influencing pain reduction and moderating the association between motivation and pain relief. In turn, adherence to the programme was associated with lower pain intensity, although moderated by the degree of motivation. CONCLUSIONS: In the context of COVID-19, when introducing remote and self-management strategies, pain cognitions and motivational factors should be taken into consideration to foster adherence and yield better pain outcomes.
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 | 0.017 | 0.003 |
| 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".