Measuring Pain Perceptions and Medication Taking Behavior at the End of Life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Understanding why some patients with terminal illness are reluctant to take sufficient medication to control pain is critical to effective pain management. OBJECTIVE: As a first step toward exploring the pain medication-taking behavior of palliative care patients, this pilot study tested a survey regarding pain medication adherence, medication beliefs, and quality of life (QoL). DESIGN: Convenience sample; survey. SETTING/SUBJECTS: Six patients receiving inpatient Palliative Care consultations at an academic medical center answered questions about their outpatient pain medication-taking behavior. MEASUREMENTS: Medication Adherence Report Scale (MARS), Beliefs about Medications Questionnaire (BMQ), Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), closed-response items from a pain medication adherence study in terminally ill patients, the McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire (McGill), and demographic items. RESULTS: The battery of questionnaires took approximately 53 minutes; five of six participants were able to complete all items. Respondents reported moderate to severe pain (mean 4.3/10 for pain on average; 7/10 for worst pain in past 24 hours), and excellent medication adherence. When asked how much relief was provided by pain therapies, respondents reported a mean 73% (range 50-100%) relief. They expressed little concern about addiction, but more concern about medication-induced nausea and constipation. Overall QoL was good (mean 6.8/10, range 5-10, higher score better), with notably high scores in existential and support domains. CONCLUSIONS: Inpatients receiving palliative care consultation were able to complete interviewer-administered questionnaires regarding their pain perceptions, medications, and QoL. Further studies using these instruments are feasible and could inform shared decision making about pain management.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".