Organizing Health Services for Patients with Chronic Pain: When There Is a Will There Is a Way: Table 1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SETTING: Due to its magnitude as a health problem, its associated burden, and the viability of modes of intervention, chronic pain (CP) should be considered a priority within health care systems. The lives of many patients with CP are devastated by this problem and health care professionals have a responsibility to assist them in reducing their suffering. Countries, regions, and systems differ considerably with regard to how they organize, administer, and finance services for CP patients. OBJECTIVE: In this review, we highlight initiatives in three jurisdictions--France, Australia, and the Veterans' Health Administration in the United States--which demonstrate that when there is a will there is a way to change health care services for patients with CP. This work is a synopsis of a health technology assessment report we completed on behalf of the Quebec Health Services and Technology Assessment Agency (http://www.aetmis.gouv.qc.ca) at the request of the Ministry of Health and Social Services in Quebec, Canada, to inform policymakers at various levels of the health care system. DESIGN: A literature search of published and unpublished "gray" literature was used to identify organizational themes according to structure, process, and outcome elements of health care services. For each theme, literature was reviewed in a qualitative manner; in addition, "real world" information was sought from example jurisdictions that have prioritized management of CP. Our conclusions point to key issues to consider when organizing health services for CP patients.
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 | 0.011 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".