Role of Health Care Professionals in Multidisciplinary Pain Treatment Facilities in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine the role of health care professionals in multidisciplinary pain treatment facilities (MPTF) for the treatment of chronic pain across Canada. METHODS: MPTF were defined as clinics that advertised specialized multidisciplinary services for the diagnosis and management of chronic pain, and had staff from a minimum of three different health care disciplines (including at least one medical specialty) available and integrated within the facility. Administrative leaders at eligible MPTF were asked to complete a detailed questionnaire on their infrastructure as well as clinical, research, teaching and administrative activities. RESULTS: A total of 102 MPTF returned the questionnaires. General practitioners, anesthesiologists and physiatrists were the most common types of physicians integrated in the MPTF (56%, 51% and 32%, respectively). Physiotherapists, psychologists and nurses were the most common nonphysician professionals working within these MPTF (75%, 68% and 57%, respectively), but 33% to 56% of them were part-time staff. Only 77% of the MPTF held regular interdisciplinary meetings to discuss patient management, and 32% were staffed with either a psychologist or psychiatrist. The three most frequent services provided by physiotherapists were patient assessment, individual physiotherapy or exercise, and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation. The three most common services provided by psychologists were individual counselling, cognitive behavioural therapy and psychodynamic therapy. The major roles of nurses were patient assessment, assisting in interventional procedures and patient education. CONCLUSION: Different health care professionals play a variety of important roles in MPTF in Canada. However, few of them are involved on a full-time basis and the extent to which pain is assessed and treated in a truly multidisciplinary manner is questionable.
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 | 0.004 | 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".