Prevalence and Correlates of Pain in the Canadian National Palliative Care Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pain is a common problem for people with cancer who are nearing the ends of their lives. OBJECTIVE: In the present multicentre Canadian study of palliative cancer care, the prevalence of pain, its perceived severity and its correlates across a range of physical, social, psychological, and existential symptoms and concerns were examined. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with 381 patients. In addition to inquiring about pain, the interview also assessed 21 other symptoms and concerns, and collected information about demographic characteristics, functional status and medication use. RESULTS: Pain of any intensity was reported by 268 (70.3%) participants, although for 139 (36.5%), the severity was rated as minimal or mild. For 129 (33.9%) individuals, pain was reported as moderate to extreme, and considered by the respondents to be an important ongoing problem. Patients who reported moderate to extreme pain were younger than other participants, but had lower functional status and a shorter median survival duration. They were more likely than other participants to be treated with opioid medications (P<0.001) and, less reliably, with benzodiazepines (P=0.079). Compared with participants with no, minimal or mild pain, those with moderate to extreme pain had a higher prevalence of distressing problems on 11 of 21 other symptoms and concerns. The strongest correlations were with general malaise (rho = 0.44), suffering (rho = 0.40), nausea (rho = 0.34), weakness (rho = 0.31), drowsiness (rho = 0.29) and anxiety (rho = 0.29). CONCLUSIONS: Pain continues to be a difficult problem for many patients who are receiving palliative cancer care, particularly younger individuals who are nearing death.
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 | 0.012 | 0.001 |
| 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".