Optimisation of a Self-Management Program for Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain – Protocol of the Pain Education Program Optimisation (PEPO) Randomised Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The primary objective is to compare two modes of delivering an 8-week self-management program for chronic musculoskeletal (MSK) pain: standard self-management versus supported self-management, which includes two physiotherapist-led sessions and one patient-partner-led session. The primary outcome measure is pain-related disability after 10 weeks. Secondary objectives include comparing the effects of both delivery modes on pain-related disability after 26 weeks, as well as on pain severity, kinesiophobia, catastrophizing, pain self-efficacy, anxiety, and depression after 10 and 26 weeks. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial protocol. METHODS: One hundred eight adults with chronic MSK pain will be recruited and evaluated at baseline and after 10 and 26 weeks. At each evaluation, primary (pain-related disability) and secondary (pain severity, kinesiophobia, catastrophization, pain self-efficacy, anxiety, satisfaction, and depression) outcomes will be assessed. After baseline, participants will be randomly assigned to (1) self-management group and (2) supported self-management group. In addition to the 8-week self-management program, participants in the supported self-management group will have two additional 30-minute counselling sessions with a physiotherapist and one 60-minute group session led by a peer living with chronic MSK pain. Linear mixed models will be used to compare the effects of the two delivery modes of the intervention on the outcomes. JOSPT Open 2024;2(4):282-288. Epub 10 September 2024. doi:10.2519/josptopen.2024.0070
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".