Self‐Reported Issues With Driving in Patients With Chronic Pain
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVE: To assess the driving habits, driving patterns, and barriers to driving reported by patients with chronic pain. DESIGN: Cross-sectional mail survey with self-administered questionnaires. SETTING: University-affiliated hospital. PARTICIPANTS: A sample of 223 patients seen in consultation by a physiatrist through the Chronic Pain Rehabilitation Service. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Percentage of subjects who were current drivers, percentage of subjects experiencing difficulty with driving, and driving characteristics. RESULTS: Response rate was 48.9%. Of the subjects, 79% were current drivers; of the nondrivers, 56% reported stopping driving because of chronic pain. A significantly greater percentage of nondrivers (80%) than drivers (62.9%) were women (P = .039). Nondrivers reported greater levels of pain than drivers (P = .027). The mean Pain Disability Index total score was significantly lower for drivers (42.3) than for nondrivers (48.7; P = .006). Of all subjects, 70% indicated that pain limited their driving in some manner; 41% of this group indicated that they experienced quite a bit or a great deal of difficulty driving. Factors that limited driving included pain (88.9%), fatigue (50.6%), limited joint mobility/stiffness (48.3%), and weakness (19.4%). The most frequently reported difficulties related to driving were sitting for any length of time (79.6%) and getting into the driver's seat (66.5%). Only 2.4% of current drivers had been referred for a driving assessment. CONCLUSIONS: Most people with chronic pain continue to drive and overall appear to have better functioning than those who cannot continue driving because of chronic pain. Despite being able to drive, a significant proportion of drivers with chronic pain are facing challenges not only with driving the vehicle but also with entering and positioning themselves within the vehicle. Our results suggest that chronic pain does have an impact on driving. However, it appears to be generally unrecognized as a factor for driving other than when the implications of opioid use are considered.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».