Treatments for kinesiophobia in people with chronic pain: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Kinesiophobia is associated with pain intensity in people suffering from chronic pain. The number of publications highlighting this relationship has increased significantly in recent years, emphasizing the importance of investigating and synthesizing research evidence on this topic. The purpose of this scoping review was to answer the following questions: (1) What types of interventions have been or are currently being studied in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for the management of kinesiophobia in patients with chronic pain? (2) What chronic pain conditions are targeted by these interventions? (3) What assessment tools for kinesiophobia are used in these interventions? According to the studies reviewed, (1) physical exercise is the most commonly used approach for managing irrational fear of movement, (2) interventions for kinesiophobia have primarily focused on musculoskeletal pain conditions, particularly low back pain and neck pain, and (3) the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia is the most commonly used tool for measuring kinesiophobia. Future RCTs should consider multidisciplinary interventions that can help patients confront their irrational fear of movement while taking into account the patient's personal biological, psychological, and social experiences with pain and kinesiophobia.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".