Feasibility of Mindfulness-Based Intervention for Veterans Managing Chronic Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Chronic pain impacts people's activity participation, productivity, mental health, and sense of wellbeing. Purpose. This study aimed to (1) evaluate the feasibility of the Mindfulness-Based Chronic Pain Management (MBCPM TM ) program on reducing pain perception and enhancing the quality of life, and (2) understand veterans’ experience with the program. Method. The pretest-posttest single-group, mixed-methods design was used. Thirty-one veterans were offered the 12-week intervention. The Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-29 were administered before and after the program. Focus groups and individual interviews were conducted to understand the experience. Findings. Participants’ PCS scores improved ( Z = −3.116, p = .002), but the pain intensity did not change significantly. Themes from qualitative data include: (1) We are not alone! (2) I have a sense of awareness, choices, and control; and (3) It does work! Implications. The study shows preliminary feasibility of MBCPM TM for veterans. This promising effect supports future rigorous testing of this intervention.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".