Clinical experience with a chronic pain management programme in Hong Kong Chinese patients.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe experience with a chronic pain management programme in Hong Kong Chinese patients. DESIGN: Prospective study. SETTING: Regional hospital, Hong Kong. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with chronic pain who participated in the first six Comprehensive Out-patient Pain Engagement programmes between 2002 and 2005. INTERVENTION: Comprehensive Out-patient Pain Engagement is a 14-day structured, multidisciplinary out-patient programme conducted over 6 weeks. It includes pain education, cognitive re-conceptualisation, training in communication skills and coping strategies, graded physical exercises and functional activities training. It aims to improve patient function and quality of life, despite persistent pain. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Changes in scores from baseline values after joining the programme, with respect to several assessment tools. These included the following: visual analogue pain scale, Pain Catastrophizing Scale, Patient Self-efficacy Questionnaire, Canadian Occupational Performance Measure, Medical Outcome Survey-Short Form 36 Questionnaire, and duration of physical tolerances, medication utilisation, and work status records. RESULTS: Forty-five patients were available for analysis. After the Comprehensive Out-patient Pain Engagement programme, improvements in Medical Outcome Survey-Short Form 36 Questionnaire (role physical and vitality), Pain Catastrophizing Scale, Patient Self-efficacy Questionnaire, and Canadian Occupational Performance Measure were demonstrated (P<0.05). The duration of standing and sitting tolerances increased (P<0.05). An improvement in employment rate was also evident (P=0.01). CONCLUSION: The initial results of our management programme in Chinese patients with chronic pain are encouraging. This type of programme should be promoted more widely in this group of patients, as it appears to improve physical function, psychological well-being, and productivity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".