The economic impact of chronic pain in adolescence: Methodological considerations and a preliminary costs-of-illness study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic pain in adulthood is one of the most costly conditions in modern western society. However, very little is known about the costs of chronic pain in adolescence. This preliminary study explored methods for collecting economic-related data for this population and estimated the cost-of-illness of adolescent chronic pain in the United Kingdom. The client service receipt inventory was specifically adapted for use with parents of adolescent chronic pain patients to collect economic-related data (CSRI-Pain). This method was compared and discussed in relation to other widely used methods. The CSRI-Pain was sent to 52 families of adolescents with chronic pain to complete as a self-report retrospective questionnaire. These data were linked with unit costs to estimate the total care cost package for each family. The economic impact of adolescent chronic pain was found to be high. The mean cost per adolescent experiencing chronic pain was approximately 8,000 pounds per year, including direct and indirect costs. The adolescents attending a specialised pain management unit, who had predominantly non-inflammatory pain, accrued significantly higher costs, than those attending rheumatology outpatient clinics, who had mostly inflammatory diagnoses. Extrapolating the mean total cost to estimated UK prevalence data of adolescent chronic pain demonstrates a cost-of-illness to UK society of approximately 3,840 million pounds in one year. The implications of the study are discussed.
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 | 0.077 | 0.158 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".