Chronic Neuropathic Pain in Spinal Cord Injury: The Patient′s Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic neuropathic pain (CNP) in spinal cord injury (SCI) is recognized as severely compromising, in both adjustment after injury and quality of life. Studies indicate that chronic pain in SCI is associated with great emotional distress over and above that of the injury itself. Currently, little is known about the SCI patient's perception of the impact of living with chronic neuropathic pain. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to explore the experience of CNP in SCI patients in relation with physical, emotional, psychosocial, environmental, informational, practical and spiritual domains, and to identify effective and ineffective pain coping strategies. METHODS: Three focus groups were conducted that included 24 SCI individuals living in the community. Participants were selected to maximize variation in terms of type of SCI, Frankel classification, years since onset of SCI, age and sex. The sessions were audiotaped and tapes were transcribed. A qualitative analysis of data involved a constant comparison approach, in which categories and themes were identified. RESULTS: Many complex themes emerged including: nature of pain; coping as process and product; medication failure; and the impact of CNP on physical, cognitive, emotional, interpersonal, social and life activities. CONCLUSIONS: Medication failure was identified as a common outcome, while strategies including use of warm water, swimming, increased activity and distraction provided temporary pain relief. Learning to live with the pain appeared to be related to acceptance of pain, which in turn seemed to facilitate adjustment. Further research is warranted to determine the process by which SCI patients learn to live with CNP and coping strategies that facilitate adjustment to CNP in SCI patients.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".