Exploring the Lived Experience of Adults using Prescription Opioids to Manage Chronic Noncancer Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) and prescription opioid use is a highly complex and growing health care issue in Canada. Many quantitative research studies have investigated the effectiveness of opioids for chronic pain; however, gaps remain in the literature regarding the personal experience of using opioids and their impact on those experiencing CNCP. OBJECTIVE: To explore the lived experience of adults using prescription opioids to manage CNCP, focusing on how opioid medication affected their daily lives. METHODS: In-depth qualitative interviews were conducted with nine adults between 40 and 68 years of age who were using prescription opioids daily for CNCP. Interviews were audiorecorded and transcribed, and subsequently analyzed using interpretive phenomenological analysis. RESULTS: Six major themes identified positive and negative aspects of opioid use associated with social, physical, emotional and psychological dimensions of pain management. These themes included the process of decision making, and physical and psychosocial consequences of using opioids including pharmacological side effects, feeling stigmatized, guilt, fears, ambivalence, self-protection and acceptance. CONCLUSION: Although there were many negative aspects to using opioids daily, the positive effects outweighed the negative for most participants and most of the negative aspects were socioculturally induced rather than caused by the drug itself. The present study highlighted the complexities involved in using prescription opioids daily for management of CNCP for individuals living with 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 | 0.003 | 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".