Predisposing, precipitating and perpetuating factors and the common sense model of illness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Various predisposing, precipitating and perpetuating factors are found to be associated with development of persistent symptoms and disability after whiplash trauma. According to the commonsense model of illness, people use commonsense knowledge to develop individual illness models when facing health threat. Question: Can we use the common-sense model as a unifying model to encompass the impact of predisposing, precipitating, and perpetuating factors in the development of chronic whiplash? Looking into specific factors and their interaction: Do illness perceptions mediate the effect of precollision sick leave on chronic whiplash? Methods: This presentation will integrate findings from research on predisposing, precipitating, perpetuating factors that are associated with poor outcome after whiplash trauma and propose the common-sense model as a unifying model. Data from a study including 740 consecutive patients referred from emergency departments and primary care after car accidents in Denmark will be presented. Patients completed questionnaires during the week after the collision, and 3 and 12 months later. Data on transfer benefits and use of health care during 5 years before the collision were obtained from national registers. Results: The common-sense model of illness can serve as a unifying and explanatory model of how predisposing, precipitating, and perpetuating factors may dynamically interact. We propose that the common-sense model may provide exactly such a framework. Looking into specific factors in the model we found that negative perception of the whiplash trauma mediated the effect of previous sick leave on future neck pain, sum of indirect effect: 0.017, confidence intervals (0.008;0.028). Conclusion: Previous life experiences have an impact on how people make sense of a health threat which influences coping and thus outcome after a whiplash trauma. The common-sense model of illness may provide a framework for understanding the complex interactions of multiple factors that are involved in the development of chronic whiplash.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".