The Meaning and Process of Pain Acceptance. Perceptions of Women Living with Arthritis and Fibromyalgia
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Within the past 10 years, cognitive-behavioural pain management models have moved beyond the traditional focus on coping strategies and perceived control over pain, to incorporate mindfulness- and acceptance-based approaches. Pain acceptance is the process of giving up the struggle with pain and learning to live life despite pain. Acceptance is associated with lower levels of pain, disability and psychological distress. Relatively little is known, however, about how patients arrive at a state of acceptance without the aid of therapy. OBJECTIVES: To explore personal definitions of acceptance and the factors that facilitate or hinder acceptance. METHODS: Eleven focus groups, involving a total of 45 women with arthritis and fibromyalgia, were conducted. RESULTS: The qualitative analysis revealed that, while the women rejected the word 'acceptance', they did agree with the main components of existing research definitions. The women's responses revealed that acceptance was a process of realizations and acknowledgements, including realizing that the pain was not normal and help was needed, receiving a diagnosis, acknowledging that there was no cure and realizing that they needed to redefine 'normal'. Diagnosis, social support, educating self and others, and self-care were factors that promoted acceptance. Struggling to retain a prepain identity, negative impacts on relationships, others not accepting their pain and the unspoken message that the pain was 'all in their head' were barriers to acceptance. CONCLUSION: The implications of these findings, distinctions between the diagnostic groups and recommendations regarding how health professionals can facilitate the process of acceptance are discussed.
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it