Questions that individuals with spinal cord injury have regarding their chronic pain: A qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To explore the questions that community-dwelling individuals with a traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI) have regarding their chronic pain and to identify their preferred methods of acquiring this information. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 individuals experiencing SCI-related chronic pain. Qualitative content analysis was used to identify participants' questions about their pain and to organise them according to emergent themes. RESULTS: Six themes pertaining to chronic pain were identified. These included: (1) cause, (2) communication, (3) expectation, (4) getting information, (5) management and (6) other's experience with chronic pain. Participants described using a variety of sources to obtain information about chronic pain including health care providers, other SCI-consumers and the Internet. Participants preferred to have chronic pain information available to them on an as needed basis. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with SCI have numerous questions about their chronic pain and use a variety of information sources to answer them. Many are dissatisfied with the level of knowledge that family physicians have about SCI-related chronic pain. This study provides valuable information from the consumer's perspective, which can be used to develop interventions to help health care professionals and consumers manage SCI-related chronic pain.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".