Pain management in urology training: A national survey of senior residents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We explore the attitudes and experience of urology residents toward acute and chronic pain management during their training. METHOD: A convenience sample of Canadian Urology chief residents were invited to complete an anonymous questionnaire involving both open and closed-ended questions using a 5-point Likert scale. Descriptive and quantitative statistics were used to analyze the attitudes toward pain management, including their experience and training issues. RESULTS: The response rate was 97%. Most residents agreed or strongly agreed that more formal training in acute pain (77% agreement, mean 4.03 ± 0.98 SD) and chronic pain (68%, 3.97 ± 0.95) management would be valuable in urology residency with only 1 respondent disagreeing that training should be mandatory. There was a significant difference of training experience in chronic versus acute pain management, with only 13% agreement (2.99 ± 0.67) that their training in chronic pain was adequate. Most residents agreed (74%, 3.84 ± 1.00) that most of their training in pain management came from their senior residents or fellows. Many of the residents (65%, 3.61 ± 0.84) felt that they could manage their patients' acute pain issues independently, even in the absence of an acute pain service, although apparent knowledge of opioids was poor. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this survey suggest that urology residents attain their knowledge of pain management experientially with what may be insufficient formal training, particularly in chronic pain. These observations are limited by the relatively small number of respondents and by the nature of a cross-sectional, self-reported survey; however, they would appear to underscore a need to redouble efforts in residency education.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".