Interventions to Modify Psychological Processes in Patients Undergoing Spine Surgery: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ObjectivesAmong patients undergoing elective spine surgery, psychological processes such as kinesiophobia and pain catastrophizing are associated with postoperative disability and poor quality of life. These represent risk factors which could be modified to improve surgical outcomes. We reviewed perioperative interventions to modify psychological processes and their effects on psychological and surgery-related outcomes.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases for studies examining any interventions for modifying psychological processes in adult patients undergoing spine surgery. Two reviewers screened studies for eligibility, extracted data in duplicate, and performed risk of bias assessments. Outcomes included pain, disability, quality of life, kinesiophobia, self-efficacy, and pain catastrophizing.Results368 titles and abstracts were retrieved, of which 27 studies underwent full-text screening. We included 12 studies which reported on 1263 patients. Eight were randomized controlled trials. Interventions included preoperative and postoperative cognitive behavioural therapy, cognitive-behavioural-based physical therapy, a web-based interactive platform, an information booklet, and music therapy. The psychological and surgery-related outcomes of interventions were variable, with some studies reporting significant benefits and others reporting no differences between groups. The greatest potential benefits were found in studies of post-operative cognitive-behavioural-based physical therapy. Risk of bias among studies was high due primarily to lack of blinding and limited standardization of interventions.ConclusionsSeveral interventions to potentially modify psychological processes in patients undergoing spine surgery have been reported. Post-operative cognitive-behavioural-based physical therapy might be associated with improved outcomes, but confidence is limited by inconsistency, risk of bias, and limited long-term follow-up.
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 | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".