MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Patient Involvement Called Key to Successful Pain-Management Programs

2003· article· en· W2320961145 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gretchen Henkel

Bibliographic record

VenueOncology Times · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicPain Management and Placebo Effect
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWatsonPain managementMedicineAlternative medicinePsychologyNursingPsychotherapistPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SAN DIEGO—Notwithstanding the last quarter century's advances, pain management in the 21st century continues to be an area fraught with moral questions and challenges. So said presenters here at the International Association for the Study of Pain's 10th World Congress on Pain, at a symposium entitled, “Patient Involvement in Pain Management: A Necessary Nuisance or a Critical Concern for All Clinicians?” Although techniques for measuring and treating pain have improved, the importance of patients' self-reports of pain and of their involvement in the management of pain is still undervalued and underutilized, said Kate Seers, RN, PhD, Head of Research at the Royal College of Nursing at Radcliffe Infirmary in Oxford, UK. In opening remarks for the symposium, Dr. Seers remarked, “Many of the ethical and moral issues [of pain management] can be easily overlooked in the business of everyday clinical practice. Few here would disagree with the idea of a patient's right to communicate his or her concerns to clinicians, yet therapeutic communication is very complex. When this complexity goes unrecognized, or is underestimated, assumptions are made and misunderstandings are common.” The consequences of such misunderstandings are often under-recognition and under-treatment of patients' pain. The answer, said the presenters, is to encourage practitioners to actively enlist patients as partners in the therapeutic process. As they addressed the advances in and barriers to patient involvement in pain management, Dr. Seers and her co-presenter, Judith Watt-Watson, RN, PhD, Associate Professor on the Faculty of Nursing and Center for the Study of Pain at the University of Toronto, introduced several motifs: Historical changes in health professionals' attitudes toward patient involvement. Challenges inherent in assessing and managing pain. Strategies for improving patient/clinician communication about the subject of pain. Since the third presenter, Irena Madjar, RN, PhD, Professor in the School of Nursing & Midwifery at the University of Newcastle, NSW, Australia, was unable to attend, her material was presented by both Dr. Seers and Dr. Watt-Watson. Pain Measurement Inclusion of pain measurement as the fifth vital sign in the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) survey attests to the prominence of current thinking about patients' pain. Ironically, though, the sole use of uni-dimensional measures such as the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) may yield insufficient data for adequate pain assessment and a result that is opposite to their intended purpose. “On the surface, it might appear that pain measurement is value-free,” Dr. Seers said. “In fact, it might be seen as a deliberate attempt to get away from the subjective and value-laden aspects of the clinician/patient interaction. Unless we can understand what the pain means to the person experiencing it, what it does to him or her, and how that person endures or copes with it, we risk reducing a complex experience to nothing more than a number on a scale.” “Measurement of pain intensity is important but is only one part of pain assessment,” agreed Dr. Watt-Watson. “We need to encourage clinicians, our colleagues, and our students not to lose sight of the patient as a person.” In line with that, clinicians should also remain sensitive to the level of responsibility for decision-making that patients and families are willing to take on. Simply shifting decision-making from physician to patients is not the answer, said the presenters, who said it is preferable to encourage dialogue and negotiation about treatment planning. Practitioners must be attentive to ways in which their everyday responses limit patient involvement and thus contribute to patients' pain, she said. “There is a tendency to expect patients to endure and be cooperative.” She quoted Dr. Madjar, who emphasizes that “making pain visible requires the voice of the person with pain, but also that of the clinician, the health professional with the power to help.” In answer to the symposium's title question, Dr. Watt-Watson concluded, “Patient involvement is not a nuisance. Patient involvement is an ethical responsibility and a clinical necessity if we are ever going to make any progress in changing pain management practices.”

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.047
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.130

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.047
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.004
Scholarly communication0.0110.008
Open science0.0030.013
Research integrity0.0060.025
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0390.008

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOncology TimesSame topicPain Management and Placebo EffectFrench-language works237,207