Client‐centered lifestyle intervention for men with fibromyalgia syndrome: Is efficacy independent of gender?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) has a significant impact on daily life, but the fact that most diagnosed individuals are women makes it difficult to understand the occupational needs and lifestyle choices of male patients. The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of a client-centered lifestyle intervention program in men with fibromyalgia and compare it with women. METHODS: The client-centered lifestyle intervention program was applied to 15 men with fibromyalgia in two sessions per week for 4 weeks in individual sessions and compared with data from 15 women who had previously participated in the same program. The Revised Fibromyalgia Questionnaire, the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and the Satisfaction with Life Scale were used as outcome measures. RESULTS: When comparing results between baseline and 4 weeks later, statistically significant differences were found in the male group in the areas of fibromyalgia severity (p = .001), occupational performance (p = .001), occupational satisfaction (p = .001), anxiety (p = .002), depression (p = .005), and life satisfaction (p = .002). It was found that occupational performance and occupational satisfaction increased significantly more in women than in men (p = .004 and p = .001, respectively). CONCLUSION: The client-centered lifestyle intervention was shown to be effective in fibromyalgia severity, occupational performance, occupational satisfaction, anxiety, depression, and life satisfaction of both men and women with FMS. Levels of progress in occupational participation could show gender-based differences. The study suggests that more attention should be paid to psychosocial factors when assessing men's occupational participation and planning appropriate interventions.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".