Experience of Barriers to Pain Management in Patients Receiving Outpatient Palliative Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patient-reported barriers are an important obstacle to cancer pain management. For effective pain management, exploring patient-reported barriers and related factors is important. OBJECTIVES: The study's objective is to determine factors associated with patient-reported barriers to cancer pain management. METHOD: We conducted a secondary analysis of data from a prospective observational study examining opioid adherence in palliative care outpatients. We evaluated the association between high score on patient-reported barriers to cancer pain management, on the Barriers Questionnaire II (BQ-II), and patients' race, sex, smoking history, pain intensity, opioid dose, and depression. RESULTS: Of 196 patients evaluated (median age 55 years), 147 (75%) were white, 41 (21%) had gastrointestinal cancer, and 121 (62%) were receiving anticancer treatment when data were collected. The median pain score was 4 (interquartile range [IQR] 3-7); 98% were receiving strong opioids; and 63% were satisfied with their pain medication. The median Edmonton symptom assessment scale (ESAS) depression score was 1 (IQR 0-3). Mean (SD) BQ-II scores were 1.8 (0.9) for physiologic effects, 1.6 (0.9) for fatalism, 0.9 (0.9) for communication, 2.3 (1.1) for harmful effects, and 1.7 (0.8) in total. Only racial differences were associated with high total BQ-II score in multivariable analysis (R2=0.05, overall F test significance=0.02). Pain related factors including opioids dose, pain intensity, and satisfaction were not associated with high BQ-II score. CONCLUSION: Patients receiving palliative care expressed low barriers to pain control. There were minimal associations of BQ-II score with demographics and clinical factors.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".