Group Interprofessional Chronic Pain Management in the Primary Care Setting: A Pilot Study of Feasibility and Effectiveness in a Family Health Team in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Approximately 18.9% of Canadians live with chronic pain. Primary care reform in Ontario presents unique opportunities to assess approaches to help these patients. OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility of an interprofessional primary care-based program for patients living with chronic pain, and to examine the potential impact of such a program on quality of life and health resource utilization. METHODS: An embedded mixed-methods evaluation (randomized controlled trial with waiting list control and semistructured interviews) of an eight-week series of small group sessions exploring multifactoral aspects of pain management was performed. Participants were randomly assigned to early intervention (EI) or delayed intervention (DI) groups. All participants received the intervention; the DI group served as a control group for comparison with the EI group. Outcomes included the Short Form-36 Health Survey version 2 (SF-36v2), medication use and health care utilization. Qualitative interviews were conducted to identify areas for program improvement. RESULTS: A total of 240 patients were recruited and 63 agreed to participate. The mean (± SD) age of the participants was 55±14.1 years and 62.3% were female. There was no significant difference in the mean change in SF-36v2 summary scores between the EI and DI groups. However, the SF-36v2 subscale score for bodily pain was significantly improved in the EI group compared with the DI group after six months of observation (mean difference = 13.1 points; P<0.05). There was also significant improvement in this score when both groups were pooled and aggregate preintervention and postintervention scores were compared. There was a significant decrease in the mean number of clinic visits in the six-month period following the intervention compared with the six-month period before the intervention (P=0.043). CONCLUSION: An interprofessional program in primary care for patients living with chronic pain may lead to improvements in quality of life and health resource utilization. The challenges to the feasibility of the program and its evaluation are recruitment and retention of patients, leading to the conclusion that the program, as it was conducted in the present study, is not appropriate for this setting.
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 | 0.023 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".