Analgesic use and pain coping among patients with haemophilia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pain is an important consequence of bleeding episodes in haemophilia. Previous research has included pain frequency and severity among measures of illness-related disability and quality of life in haemophilia, but little systematic evidence exists about analgesic use and pain coping in haemophilia. This paper reports cross-sectional findings from a national survey of patients with severe haemophilia type A and type B. Respondents provided information about pain frequency, pain coping strategies (using the haemophilia-adapted CSQ), use of analgesics and other drugs, and described any concerns they had about their drug use. Participants registered with comprehensive care haemophilia centres did not differ from the rest of the sample on any of the factors recorded. Over one-third of participants expressed concerns about their drug use, the most frequent of which were about dependence on prescribed analgesics. Pain frequency was the most important predictor of analgesic use, but pain coping, and specifically negative thoughts about pain, was associated with concerns about drug use independently of other factors, including analgesic use and pain frequency. Further research will be needed to evaluate possible interventions to promote more effective pain coping in haemophilia, and to examine the possible effects of pain coping on illness outcomes beyond analgesic use, such as well-being and quality of life.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".