Barriers and Facilitators in Pain Management in Long-Term Care Institutions: A Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to identify barriers to the management of pain in long-term care institutions. Formal caregivers practising in four long-term care institutions in Hamilton, Ontario participated in eight focus groups. Participants included 6 physicians, 19 registered nurses, 8 registered practical nurses, 13 health care aides and 8 occupational therapists or physiotherapists. Three types of barriers were found: caregiver-related, patient-related and systems-related. Four themes for facilitating pain management were identified: (a) caregivers knowing the patient, (b) family support, (c) caregivers demonstrating understanding and compassion, and (d) teamwork by caregivers. Formal caregivers practising in long-term care institutions encounter a multitude of barriers that hinder the adequate assessment and treatment of pain, such as caregiver beliefs and knowledge and cognitive impairment in patients. Innovative strategies and strong political will are needed to overcome them.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".