Individuals’ beliefs about the biopsychosocial factors that contribute to their chronic musculoskeletal pain: protocol for a qualitative study in the UK
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMP) is described as pain that persists for longer than 3 months. At present, no research is available that understands why CMP develops and continues from the perspective of the individual. Research is needed to establish if there are any consistent biopsychosocial factors perceived as contributing to CMP and what informs such beliefs. Understanding individual beliefs will inform more effective communication between clinicians and patients about their CMP, as well as informing future research into the epidemiology of CMP. Interpretative phenomenological analysis will be used as a methodological framework as it explores how individuals make sense of their world through personal experiences and perceptions while preserving individual nuance. The aim of this study is to understand individuals' beliefs and perceptions about the biological, psychological and social factors, which contribute to the development and maintenance of their CMP. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A qualitative study informed by the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research using interpretative phenomenological analysis and semistructured interviews. A maximum variation purposive sample of 6-12 adults with CMP will be recruited from the general public in the UK. One semistructured interview will be conducted with each participant via an online video platform with interviews transcribed verbatim. The interview schedule (codesigned with expert patients and informed by existing evidence) identifies three domains of important questions; (1) patient beliefs on why they developed and continue to experience CMP; (2) the relationship between their biopsychosocial experiences and CMP; and (3) the origin of their beliefs. Strategies such as 'member checking' will be employed to ensure trustworthiness. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was granted by the Research Ethics Office at the University of Birmingham (reference ERN_21-0813). Informed consent will be obtained from all participants. The study findings will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and for presentation at conferences.
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 | 0.060 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.049 | 0.008 |
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".