Pain Reports by Older Adults in Long‐Term Care: A Pilot Study of Changes Over Time
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To document self-reported pain descriptions throughout residency in a long-term care facility for a convenience sample of older adults (Canadian war veterans). DESIGN AND METHODS: The present study was a longitudinal, fixed-cohort study with anticipated attrition. Participants (n = 33) were assessed every three months from admission until attrition or end of study (three years). The assessments included standardized measures of psychosocial functioning and a comprehensive pain questionnaire for residents who reported a pain problem. RESULTS: On average, respondents completed five assessments before attrition and reported pain in 69% of assessments. The likelihood of pain report decreased as the number of assessments increased. Cross-sectional analysis indicated that, at admission, pain duration was greater and nonverbal pain expression less prominent than later in residency. Longitudinal analysis indicated greater than 50% within-subject variability across three consecutive pain reports for nonpharmacological pain relief, pain expression and functional impact of pain. CONCLUSION: The present study highlights the need for patient-centred, longitudinal investigations of both the natural progression of pain and environmental factors that mediate pain management in the interests of improving pain control for this population.
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 | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".