Learning to Manage Chronic Pain: The Patients’ Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The objective of the present study was to gain insight into patients' experiences in a 4-week interdisciplinary chronic pain management program by determining major themes from patients' written comments on exit questionnaires. METHODS: Upon completion of the program at the Chronic Pain Management Unit (CPMU), patients fill out program satisfaction (Pain Program Satisfaction Questionnaire) and evaluation of goal accomplishment (Self-Evaluation Scale) forms, sections of which are open-ended. Questionnaire data from 50 patients, admitted into the CPMU between May 2013 and December 2014, were randomly selected for this study. Written responses to open-ended sections were obtained. Comments were stratified by gender and coded using an inductive approach. Codes were grouped into categories which were further combined into several major themes. RESULTS: Six main themes extracted from comments were (1) impact of a strong interdisciplinary team, (2) learning to adapt in order to manage, (3) the Program as a stepping stone, (4) positive effects of a group effort, (5) improved mental health, and (6) benefits of the program. CONCLUSION: The results of this analysis reinforce the effectiveness of the interdisciplinary CPMU program at improving patients' quality of life. Findings may assist in the promotion of the program to stakeholders such as referral sources. The outcomes may also assist in the development of future programs that have similar goals. Concerns that arise within patients' comments may assist clinicians in this program to make adjustments such that all unique needs are met.
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".