Pain and pain-related interference with function in older Canadians: the Canadian study of health and aging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The effect that pain has on everyday physical and psychological functioning in the older population is not well understood. The main objective of this study was to describe the extent of pain and pain-related disability in the Canadian population and examine the relationships between demographic and health-related variables and pain-related interference in physical and psychological functioning. METHOD: The data was obtained from the follow up study to The Canadian Study of Health and Ageing. Information from 5,703 Canadians 70 years of age and older was analysed in this study. RESULTS: Fifty-nine point three per cent of the women and 48.4% of the men reported having pain in the 4 weeks prior to the interview. Of those who reported pain, a greater proportion of women compared with men reported that pain at least moderately interfered with physical functioning (moving about, normal tasks, recreational activities, sleep) and psychological functioning (mood, enjoyment of life). The intensity of pain and chronic disease combinations were also shown to be significantly associated with pain-related interference with physical and psychological functioning. CONCLUSIONS: A large proportion of older Canadians reports pain and pain-related disability. Thorough pain assessment and management should be incorporated into the health programmes aimed at maximizing physical and psychological function in the older population.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".