Understanding the link between pain invalidation and depressive symptoms: The role of shame and social support in people with chronic pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pain invalidation (e.g., having pain discounted) is a risk factor for depression among people with chronic pain, but the mechanisms remain unclear. Shame is a common, yet understudied, aspect of the pain experience. This study investigated whether pain-related shame helps explain the relationship between pain discounting and heightened depressive symptoms. The secondary aim was to examine whether social support can protect against the harmful effects of discounting. Patients with chronic pain ( N = 305) were recruited from outpatient pain clinics. Participants completed an online cross-sectional survey and data were analyzed using moderated mediation analysis. Greater discounting was associated with greater depressive symptoms, and pain-related shame significantly mediated this relationship. Perceived social support attenuated the relationship between discounting and depressive symptoms. Greater attention towards pain-related shame as a treatment target is needed. Individual- and system-level interventions are required to address pain invalidation and bolster support for this population.
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 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 | 0.007 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".