The Effects of Multidisciplinary Educational Program on Quality of Life and Disability of Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain: A Clinical Trial with 3, 6, 12 and 18 Months Follow ups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Chronic low back pain is one of the most health problems worldwide. This study aimed to examine the effects of a designed multidisciplinary program on quality of life and disability among chronic low back pain patients up to 18 months. Methods: This study followed the participants in previous randomized controlled trial up to 18 months. Therefore, data at 18- month follow up, were collected through SF-36, Ronald –Morris Disability Questionnaire, and Quebec low back pain Disability Scale and then analyzed in five stages of 0, 3, 6, 12, and 18 months through repeated measure ANOVA. Finding: Repeated measures ANOVA showed that interactions between time and group were different in all subscales of SF-36 scale (all P ≤ 0.05).The disability of patients was decreased over time in intervention group that was significantly different from control group (P < 0.01). Conclusion: The findings of this study suggest that the designed multidisciplinary program could improve quality of life and decrease disability even up to 18 months in chronic low back pain patients.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".