Chronic pain in adults with an intellectual disability: Prevalence, impact, and health service use based on caregiver report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined chronic pain in adults with an intellectual disability (ID), in terms of its prevalence, impact on physical and psychological functioning, and treatments used. Questionnaires were distributed to 2378 primary caregivers (caregivers) of community-dwelling adults with an ID. The questionnaires were used to gather data on demographics, general health, nature of pain, impact of pain, treatment, and health-related decision making. Responses were received from 753 caregivers (31.6% response rate). Caregivers reported that 15.4% of this sample was experiencing chronic pain, for an average of 6.3 years. Significantly more females than males were reported to experience chronic pain, although age, communication ability, and level of ID were not found to be associated with the presence of pain. However, the presence of pain was associated with cerebral palsy, physical disability, and reports of challenging behaviour. A significant proportion of individuals with chronic pain also experienced limitations in several aspects of daily living, and more than 78% of caregivers reported that the service user had become upset or distressed by pain. More than 80% of service users were receiving some form of treatment for their pain, with most seeing a family physician and using analgesics as the primary form of pain treatment. Results indicate that chronic pain is a significant problem for persons with an ID, with a proportion of service users living with daily pain for many years and experiencing limitations in daily functioning, emotional 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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".