Factors affecting the psychological functioning of Australian adults with chronic pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The role of resilience, for adults facing ongoing adversity in the form of chronic medical conditions, has received little attention in the past. This research investigated the impact of resilience and coping strategies on the psychological functioning of 87 Australian adults with chronic pain, using a self-report questionnaire. It included the McGill Pain Questionnaire, the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale, the Coping Strategies Questionnaire, the 36-item Short Form Health Survey, and the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale. Using hierarchical regression, after the effects of pain severity, catastrophizing, and ignoring the pain were controlled for, resilience was significantly associated with mental health-related quality of life (beta = 0.18, P < 0.05), depression (beta = -0.31, P < 0.01), and anxiety (beta = -0.20, P < 0.05). In the final model for depression, resilience had a stronger association than pain severity. Resilience did not, however, influence individual's perceptions of their physical health-related quality of life. The link between resilience and mental health-related quality of life outcomes provides initial evidence for the potential application of resilience related interventions to pain management programs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".