Pain Reports among a Complex Chronic Care Population in Canada
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The present dissertation examines pain reports among a complex chronic disease (CCD) population of adults from complex chronic care (CCC) facilities across Ontario, Canada. The literature review provides an overview of multimorbidity, complex chronic disease, acute and chronic pain, and the interactions between these constructs. The present dissertation comprises three studies that examine reports of pain among the CCD population, with each study drawing upon data from the Canadian Institute of Health Information (CIHI) Continuing Care Reporting System (CCRS) dataset, obtained through the Graduate Student Data Access Program (GSDAP). The first study investigates combinations of multimorbidity associated with pain. Specifically, pain prevalence, intensity and frequency are examined in relation to medical disease categories, as well as, combinations of two to five of the most prevalent multimorbid disease categories among this adult, CCD population. This study provides an overview of the types of disease combinations that are particularly problematic in regard to pain among this population. Results indicate that the top five most prevalent combinations of multimorbid disease patterns are endocrine/metabolic/nutrition, heart/circulation, musculoskeletal, neurological and psychiatric/mood. Building further upon these findings, Studies 2 and 3 examine pain reports from specific disease categories in the greater CCD population. Study 2 examines the phenomenon of hypertension-associated-hypoalgesia, investigating the difference in pain reports between Ontario CCC residents with and without hypertension. Optimal propensity matched groups were compared for differences on various pain report scales and results indicated that residents with hypertension experience less pain (hypoalgesia) than residents without hypertension. Study 3 investigates pain reports in another sub-group of the CCD population; specifically, those with missing limbs. Similar to Study 2, propensity matching was utilized to create comparably matched groups of residents with and without missing limbs. Findings from this study are consistent with existing literature that individuals with amputations are more likely to report greater pain than those without. In both studies 2 and 3, females were more likely to report pain than males, consistent with extensive pain literature in this area. \nAll three studies benefit from the use of a reliable, comprehensive dataset that allows for the inclusion of multiple control variables and a large, diverse and generalizable sample size. A limitation permeating each study, however, is the pain reporting scale and vague disease descriptions. These strengths and limitations are addressed in detail throughout each study, as well as in the General Discussion of the dissertation. The contributions of each of the three studies presented in this dissertation allows for more information about the demographic, medical and pain experiences of this unique population, which in turn can be used in a clinical context to inform training for current and future health care providers, as well as in the policy context to guide intervention efforts. Future research that identifies the successful approaches to managing CCD and pain would be invaluable to delivering individualized, adaptive and patient-centered care for this growing population. This research is necessary for ensuring that this significant patient population is receiving the highest quality of care from multidisciplinary health care teams.
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 | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,007 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 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 ».