Seniors’ decision making about pain management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal pain is a problem with which many seniors must contend, many on a daily basis. Little is known, however, of the self-care decisions that seniors make regarding the management and control of this pain. These decisions can influence in a significant manner the delivery of health care to seniors and their overall health and well-being. Purpose. The purpose of our exploratory-descriptive study was to investigate seniors' decision making regarding the management and control of musculoskeletal pain by gathering data about the context of decision making, the types of decisions seniors made, their decisional conflict and the resources they used in decision making. METHODS: Focus groups and a mail-back questionnaire were used. Data were gathered in 1997 from a convenience sample of 50 seniors in Canada who experienced musculoskeletal pain of a noteworthy nature. RESULTS: Findings revealed that participants made decisions within a context of ageing and the health and social consequences of advancing age. The types of decisions they made included to ignore their pain and to use distraction. They also used exercise, the application of heat and cold, and medications to manage pain. Decisional conflict was minimal and consultation with family and friends superseded that with professionals. CONCLUSIONS: This study contributed to knowledge of decision making in later life about health matters generally, and the management and control of pain specifically. Findings point to the resourcefulness of seniors with respect to self-care and decision making. Seniors want to make informed decisions. However, they need information about the risks and benefits of decisions.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".