The Prevalence of Pain and Its Association With Psychosocial Factors for Indigent Adults Enrolled in a Primary Care Clinic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Pain is a symptom reported in 50% to 70% of primary care visits and negatively impacts both physical and psychological functioning. People at risk of receiving inadequate management of pain include the indigent and people of color. The purpose of this exploratory, descriptive, cross-sectional study was to describe the prevalence of pain and its relation to functional status, depressive symptoms, perception of control over pain and coping in an urban, primary care clinic for indigent adults. METHODS: Individuals (N=301) attending a primary care clinic for indigent adults were surveyed. Patients were 22 to 64 years of age, experienced pain during the past 2 weeks, and were able to understand and respond in English. RESULTS: Ninety-two percent of the sample was African American and the average worst pain score was 8.4/10. The majority of patients had depression symptoms (77%), with pain most affecting patients' function with sleep, ability to work, and walking. Patients reporting higher pain scores had significantly lower perception of control over pain and reduced control over life in general. Higher reported pain levels were also significantly correlated with higher catastrophizing, depressive symptoms, and interference with function scores. DISCUSSION: Pain levels were reported as high and affected psychological and physical functioning. This study was unique in the high percentage of African American participants and being conducted in a primary care clinic for indigent adults. Greater understanding of this population's pain will assist clinicians to assess pain comprehensively, provide education, and make treatment decisions for these 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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".