Pain acceptance and illness intrusiveness in low-back pain: A longitudinal study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background In chronic pain syndromes, acceptance of pain may be a better approach than pain control. So far, little data have been available on how pain and its acceptance affect illness intrusiveness among patients with low-back pain (LBP). Objective The present longitudinal study evaluates the impact of pain acceptance on illness intrusiveness in patients with LBP. Methods Study participants were asked to complete the following questionnaires during their visit (T1) at one of four diverse rheumatologic outpatient clinics, and then 2–3 months later (T2) via phone or online: Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire (CPAQ), Illness Intrusiveness Rating Scale (IIRS), Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), Patient Health Questionnaire Depression subscale (PHQ9), and socioeconomic data. Results One hundred and twenty-seven individuals completed the questionnaires at baseline (31 having acute, 15 subacute and 81 chronic low back pain) and 97 at follow-up. Illness intrusiveness was negatively correlated with chronic pain acceptance both at T1 (r = −0.39) and T2 (r = –0.44). Illness intrusiveness scores have not changed significantly from T1 (M = 28.59 SD = 13.08) to T2 (M = 28.24, SD = 15.76). In a multiple regression model—including pain intensity, functional status, pain acceptance, depression severity, age, sex and educational level—the independent predictors of follow-up illness intrusiveness scores were lower pain acceptance and higher depression scores. Conclusions In our study, patients with acute, subacute and chronic low back pain reported similar levels of illness intrusiveness. In addition, illness intrusiveness scores have not changed significantly during the 2-month follow-up period and pain acceptance proved to be a significant independent predictor of illness intrusiveness among patients with chronic low-back 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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".