A Literature Review on Chronic Pain: The Daily Overcoming of a Complex Problem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Chronic pain has an impact on the working life of those affected, but what about other areas of daily living? The objective in this research paper is to review the relationship between chronic pain and engagement in instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs), sleep and family life. Method: A search in the Medline (2006–2010) and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL) (2004–2010) databases using the key terms ‘chronic pain’, ‘family’, ‘sleep disorders’ and ‘occupation’ was carried out. To be included, articles had to refer to the effects of chronic pain on IADLs, on sleep or on the family. Studies in which a specific diagnosis or condition was discussed were excluded to provide a more general view of the effects of chronic pain. Quality was assessed using the STROBE statement scale (for descriptive studies, from Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology), the Qualitative Research Guidelines Project (for qualitative studies) and the PRISMA statement scale (for systematic reviews, from Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). Results: Of the 256 articles obtained from the search, 13 met the inclusion criteria. The articles show that chronic pain indeed has an impact on the lives of those affected in other areas besides work rehabilitation. Conclusion: Occupational therapists must consider levels of performance and engagement in all occupational domains of an individual, even when focusing on a single domain due to the work setting or commissioning process.
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 | 0.008 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".