Friend or Foe? A Thematic Analysis of Adult Friendships and Chronic Pain Adjustment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic pain is a worldwide public health challenge. Despite chronic pain having biopsychosocial dimensions, its social contexts are less investigated. Although current evidence shows that chronic pain shapes and is shaped by interactions with romantic partners, research about friendships and chronic pain is scarce, and mostly focused on adolescents. AIM: Drawing upon theories on friendship and social support, this study aimed to investigate the role of adult friendships on chronic pain adjustment and, the effect of chronic pain on adult friendships. METHODS: This study drew upon a qualitative descriptive methodology. Sixteen adults with primary or secondary (non-cancer) chronic pain participated in individual semi-structured interviews, conducted using voice over internet protocol applications. Data analysis was guided by Clarke and Brown's guidelines for thematic analysis. RESULTS: = 43 years) stories revealed two themes. The first captured how friends promote/hinder adjustment to chronic pain by being: (1) (un)available and providing (un)needed support; and (2) (not)accepting and (not)accommodating to support life engagement. The second captured the negative effect of chronic pain on both parties' attitudes and behaviors towards the relationship, leading to smaller and more homogeneous friendship networks. CONCLUSIONS: This study stresses the relevance of including adult friends in interventions to reduce the negative effect of chronic pain on friendships, harnessing their power to promote chronic pain adjustment. The findings bring new insights on a topic that has rarely been investigated in the pain field, hence pointing out innovative directions for future research and practice.
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 | 0.017 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".