MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2281572170 · doi:10.1155/2015/345432

Physician‐to‐Physician Telephone Consultations for Chronic Pain Patients: A Pragmatic Randomized Trial

2015· article· en· W2281572170 on OpenAlexaff
Alexander J. Clark, Paul Taenzer, Neil Drummond, Christopher C. Spanswick, Lori Montgomery, Ted Findlay, John X. Pereira, Tyler Williamson, Luz Palacios‐Derflingher, Ted Braun

Bibliographic record

VenuePain Research and Management · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Management and Opioid Use
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineReferralChronic painRandomized controlled trialFamily medicinePhysical therapyPatient satisfactionTelephone interviewPrimary care physicianQuality of life (healthcare)MEDLINEPrimary careNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The impact of telephone consultations between pain specialists and primary care physicians regarding the care of patients with chronic pain is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of telephone consultations between pain specialists and primary care physicians regarding the care of patients with chronic pain. METHODS: Patients referred to an interdisciplinary chronic pain service were randomly assigned to either receive usual care by the primary care physician, or to have their case discussed in a telephone consultation between a pain specialist and the referring primary care physician. Patients completed a numerical rating scale for pain, the Pain Disability Index and the Short Form-36 on referral, as well as three and six months later. Primary care physicians completed a brief survey to assess their impressions of the telephone consultation. RESULTS: Eighty patients were randomly assigned to either the usual care group or the standard telephone consultation group, and 67 completed the study protocol. Patients were comparable on baseline pain and demographic characteristics. No differences were found between the groups at six months after referral in regard to pain, disability or quality of life measures. Eighty percent of primary care physicians indicated that they learned new patient care strategies from the telephone consultation, and 97% reported that the consultation answered their questions and helped in the care of their patient. DISCUSSION: Most primary care physicians reported that a telephone consultation with a pain specialist answered their questions, improved their patients' care and resulted in new learning. Differences in patient status compared with a usual care control group were not detectable at six-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: While telephone consultations are clearly an acceptable strategy for knowledge translation, additional strategies may be required to actually impact patient outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0060.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.316 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePain Research and ManagementSame topicPain Management and Opioid UseFrench-language works237,207