MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2402656352

EDITORIAL: Pain Advocacy: The Evolution Continues, with Further Calls for Action

2012· editorial· en· W2402656352 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Barry J. Sessle

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Oral & Facial Pain and Headache · 2012
Typeeditorial
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésBlueprintMedicineDeclarationCall to actionHealth careGovernment (linguistics)European unionAlternative medicineAction (physics)Public relationsNursingPolitical scienceLawBusiness
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

In previous editorials in the Journal of Orofacial Pain, I have drawn readers’ attention to the pain “epidemic” that has reached a crisis level in most countries and to the need for increased emphasis on enhancing pain awareness, education, timely access to appropriate care, and research. I recently have also noted important steps that are being made to address these matters, such as international and national pain summits and the Declaration of Montreal.1,2 Two important and potentially influential additions to these calls for action and strategies to address the crisis have emerged in the past few months, one in the United States and the other in the European Union (EU). In the US, the Department of Health and Human Services enlisted the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to review and examine pain, especially from a public health perspective and the state of the science related to pain care, education, and research, and to make recommendations to advance the pain field. The IOM report, Relieving Pain in America: A Blueprint for Transforming Prevention, Care, Education, and Research, was released about 6 months ago, and it first drew attention to the huge socioeconomic impact that chronic pain in particular has in the US; an analogous impact occurs in most other nations.2 To improve prevention, assessment, treatment, and understanding of all types of pain, the IOM report calls for a cultural transformation, a transformation that needs to be led by government agencies, health care providers and professional associations, educators, and funding agencies and that also should involve patient advocacy groups. The report provides a blueprint for achieving such a transformation, including a timeline for actions that should be developed and put into place by 2015. The following brief outline is provided to give a sense of the thrusts of the IOM Blueprint. One is related to Pain as a Public Health Challenge, and, in this regard, the Blueprint calls for enhanced awareness of pain and its consequences, an emphasis on prevention and improved assessment and management (including approaches for informing patients about self-management), and on addressing disparities in the experience of pain in population subgroups. A related challenge is Care of People with Pain, since the report notes that pain prevention, assessment, and management are inadequate for many people. The Blueprint draws attention to the need for tailoring pain care to each person’s experience and for focusing on strategies to improve care, especially on primary care clinicians, since they are called upon to handle most frontline pain cases. The Blueprint also addresses Education Challenges and advocates redesigned educational programs targeted not only at health care professionals but also at students in health care–related professional programs and at the public and patients. Despite the recent rapid advances in understanding of pain and improved diagnoses and management of several types of pain, the Blueprint recognizes that many Research Challenges still exist, and recommends several approaches to strengthen and broaden pain research. Many of the points and recommendations stemming from the IOM Blueprint indeed echo those outlined by national and international organizations and others over the past several years (eg, references 2–6), and now the EU has added its voice to these multiple calls for action. Again just 6 months ago, a symposium unique for the European Parliament took place in Brussels to address the topic of the “Societal Impact of Pain.” The scientific framework of the symposium was arranged by the European Federation of the International Association for the Study of Pain and involved over 300 European health care stakeholders (health care professionals, health authorities, patient advocacy groups, politicians, regulators, etc). The major outcome of the symposium was a Roadmap for Action calling upon European governments and EU institutions to address sevenareas related to the societal impact of pain: (1) recognition of pain being an important factor limiting quality of life; (2) availability of information and access to diagnoses and management of pain; (3) awareness of the impact (eg, medical, societal, financial) of pain and its management; (4) awareness of the importance of preventing, diagnosing, and managing pain; (5) encouragement of pain research; (6) establishment of an EU platform to exchange, compare, and benchmark best practice; and (7) monitoring of trends in pain management. I encourage all readers to review both the Roadmap (www.sip-meetings.org) and the IOM Blueprint (http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13172) to be aware of these latest efforts to address the pain crisis, and to become personally involved with local, regional, or national efforts to enhance pain awareness, education, research, and access to care.

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 machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,013
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,082
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Éditorial · Signal consensuel: Éditorial
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,022
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,073

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0130,082
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0030,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0040,003
Bibliométrie0,0030,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0050,006
Communication savante0,0140,009
Science ouverte0,0050,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0210,030
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0220,015

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,015
Tête enseignante GPT0,310
Écart entre enseignants0,296 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreÉditorial

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2012
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Oral & Facial Pain and HeadacheMême sujetMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationTravaux en français237 207