Women’s experiences of navigating chronic pain within the context of living with an episodic disability
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objectives: Of the 6.2 million Canadians aged 15 years or older who live with disability, 61% have disabilities that are not static or continuous. These dynamic conditions are known as episodic disabilities and many disproportionately experienced by women. Chronic pain is also a common feature associated with many episodic disabilities. The purpose of this article is to explore the experience of chronic pain for women living with episodic disabilities. Methods: This qualitative study draws on the tenets of interpretive description. Thirty women, with one or more episodic disabilities and chronic pain, participated in a semi-structured interview and answered questions about their chronic pain levels, using Von Korff et al.’s graded chronic pain scale. Results: Women experienced gendered treatment within the healthcare system and reported that they were frequently dismissed by their healthcare providers, most often physicians. Healthcare professionals’ practices around pain assessment were another common challenge for women. Women who were able to access financial support from government disability programs were more likely to access allied health professionals. Many of the holistic strategies that women researched and used to treat chronic pain were self-enacted. While diet, exercise, and other self-care activities are general health promotion strategies for all, they were seen as essential aspects of living that helped women have control over chronic pain and modifying the course of their episodic disability. Conclusion: Living with chronic pain and an episodic disability is complex. The findings of this study present the impact that gendered treatment in the healthcare system has on women who live with an episodic disability and experience chronic pain. It is evident that the current system did not meet the needs of the women in our study and system changes could result in better experiences, more disclosure of alternative therapies, and increase women’s agency in their 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 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 | 0,007 | 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 | 0,001 |
| 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 ».