The Longitudinal Occurrence and Impact of Comorbid Chronic Pain and Chronic Depression over Two Years in Continuing Care Retirement Community Residents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the longitudinal course of depressive symptoms and pain experienced by continuing care retirement community (CCRC) residents and to investigate the impact of comorbid chronic activity-limiting pain and chronic high depressive symptoms on physical functioning and health service use. METHODS: This longitudinal study of 169 CCRC residents involved five assessments (baseline and four in-person interviews at 6-month intervals). The Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS), questions drawn from the McGill Pain Questionnaire, and self-report data on physical functioning and health care use were assessed. Individuals reporting activity-limiting pain and those with GDS scores > or =11 at three or more assessments were considered to have chronic pain or chronic depression, respectively. The analysis sample included 169 CCRC residents. Multivariate logistic regression was used to test hypotheses. RESULTS: Pain and depressive symptoms were characterized by longitudinal stability. Of the sample, 37% met the criteria for chronic activity-limiting pain, 21% met the criteria for chronic high depressive symptoms, and 13% were comorbid. Adjusting for age and health conditions, those with chronic activity-limiting pain were five times more likely than those in the lowest pain group to persistently be in the worst two quartiles of physical functioning, as were those with even one GDS score >5. The odds of poor physical functioning were 11.2 times greater in those with comorbid chronic pain and depression. Comparable greater odds were seen in this sample for frequency of medical care visits (adjusted odds ratio AOR]=12.4) and consistently high use of all medical services (AOR=3.5). CONCLUSIONS: Pain and depressive symptoms were both common and appeared remarkably stable over time. Depressive symptoms contributed significantly to the prediction of impairment associated with pain, and identification and treatment of such symptoms, even minor symptoms, could reduce pain-related impairment and health care costs in the elderly.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".