Prioritizing chronic pain self-management amid coexisting chronic illnesses: An exploratory qualitative study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: In Canada, one out of five people lives with chronic pain, a condition frequently co-occurring with other chronic illnesses. As with most chronic illnesses, successful engagement in symptom management is key. In the context of multiple illnesses, self-management involves daily prioritization of symptoms and conditions and decision-making, which can be challenging. Self-management of chronic illnesses can require more complex competence and tasks to address the different implications of each condition. Objective: Our research objective was to explore types and processes of self-management symptom prioritization among adults living with chronic pain and other chronic illnesses. Design: This research was carried out as part of a larger study that adopted an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design. This study focused more specifically on the qualitative part of the study. Settings: Participants recruited for the qualitative component took part in a semi-structured individual interview online or in-person at the center hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal. Participants: In total, 25 participants were interviewed, including 18 women and 7 men. Methods: To participate in the qualitative part of the study, participants were selected from the larger study and were eligible if they were 18 years old or older and experiencing pain for more than 3 months and had at least one other chronic illness for which they were receiving treatment or engaged in symptom management. Semi-structured interviews were conducted in-person or virtually and were transcribed verbatim. Reflexive thematic analysis was used to explore patients' narratives, and an open and iterative approach was adopted to code interviews and generate themes. Findings: The first theme, focus on symptom prioritization, showed different prioritization processes, including prioritizing a dominant illness, prioritizing multiple illnesses to avoid undesirable consequences, and finally absence of or automatic processes of prioritization. In the second theme, we identified several characteristics of an illness, in this case chronic pain that made it a self-management priority: uncontrollable and disabling nature, omnipresence, unpredictability, unpleasantness, and invisibility to others. In the last theme, we highlighted that some psychosocial factors influenced levels of engagement in self-management and prioritization processes, including social support and the patient-physician relationship. Conclusions: Chronic pain was the medical condition most often prioritized by participants in their self-management tasks. Because of its characteristics, it was the medical condition that had the most negative impact on day-to-day functioning.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,016 | 0,018 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,010 | 0,008 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».