Relação entre Qualidade de Vida, Coping e Percepção da Dor em Adultos com Fibromialgia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research aimed to evaluate the level of pain, quality of life (QoL), coping strategies, and the relationship between these variables in adults with fi bromyalgia (FM). A cross-sectional quantitative study was conducted with 81 adults (M = 46.01; SD = 9.72), of whom 80 were women diagnosed with FM. Questionnaires on sociodemographic data, pain (McGill Pain Questionnaire – Short Form), quality of life (World Health Organization Quality of Life Instrument – Brief Version), impact of fi bromyalgia (Revised Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire – Brazilian Version) and coping strategies (Brief COPE) were applied. Regarding the level of pain, the most used word was “exhausting”, then “painful”, with a high index (M = 29.2; SD = 10.2). The WHOQOL-Bref pointed out the psychological domain perceived as having better quality, and most participants evaluated their QoL as “neither bad nor good” (32.1%), with a signifi cant number reporting being very dissatisfi ed with their health (44.4%). Most participants reported severe symptoms of FM that impact their QoL, with a FIQR-BR score above 70 points (66.7%). The most used coping strategy was religion. The FM general impact was positively correlated with QoL global perception. Regarding pain intensity, the coping strategies that were negatively correlated were distraction (r = –0.363), reinterpretation (r = –0.277) and denial (r = –0.249), whereas the coping strategy most positively correlated was disinvestment (r = 0,255). Therefore, the pain intensity was negatively related to QoL and with low effi cacy coping strategies. These fi ndings highlight the need for multidisciplinary approaches that address both physical and psychological aspects of the disease.Keywords: Fibromyalgia, quality of life, coping strategies, pain perception, mental health
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".