Stress and pain associated with dressing change in patients with chronic wounds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess pain and stress experienced by patients with chronic wounds at dressing change and to examine how this may be related to long-term chronic stress. METHOD: The study recruited 43 outpatients, with a mean age of 71.7 ± 14.6 years. The sample included 18 male (42%) and 25 female (58%) patients from Wrexham and Salford (UK), all with chronic wounds that required frequent dressing changes. Physiological and psychological measurements of pain and stress, including numerical ratings (for stress and pain), heart rate, blood pressure, respiration rate, and a questionnaire survey of state and trait anxiety and of chronic stress were recorded at dressing change and in a control condition (at least 24 hours before/after dressing change during a period of rest). RESULTS: Mean heart rate measurements were significantly higher at dressing change, while there was also a trend for higher numerical pain ratings, numerical stress ratings and state anxiety scores at this time. A significant, positive relationship was found between chronic stress and acute episodes of stress experienced at dressing change. Similarly, although not significant, a positive relationship was observed between chronic stress and acute pain reported at dressing change. CONCLUSION: This study provides a basis for understanding how increased acute pain and stress at dressing change may be related to chronic stress, which has been shown in the literature to contribute to delayed wound healing. The impact of these implications on cost of care and quality of life are also discussed. DECLARATION OF INTEREST: This study was commissioned by Mölnlycke Health Care Ltd. None of the authors work for Mölnlycke Health Care or have any financial interests with the company. There are no additional conflicts of interest to declare.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".