The quest of pain education leaders in Canada and the United States: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To determine key factors that stimulate and drive the ongoing interests of leaders in the field of pain to continue to work for change and to explore how they use their own experiences in their teaching. BACKGROUND: The assessment and management of acute and chronic pain remains a challenge and the pain education of pre-licensure/undergraduate health professionals (e.g. nurses, physicians, etc.) continues to be suboptimal. Understanding the motivations of pain leaders may provide insights to facilitate the future development of pain clinicians. DESIGN: A Narrative enquiry. METHODS: A purposeful sample of 17 Canadian and USA leaders in pain education participated. Data were collected between September 2012-January 2013 using recorded semi-structured telephone interviews. Transcripts were coded to provide storied experiences (themes). FINDINGS: Six themes were identified as a stimulus for pain leaders: An early pain experience, mentorship and circumstances, a personal shift in understanding, catalysts (institutional or political), recognition of barriers and a determination to improve. Their work towards change appeared to be motivated by their pain 'quest' where leaders embraced their personal experiences of pain, a need for social action and individual change. CONCLUSIONS: Educational approaches for health professionals usually focus on the importance of knowledge, skills and attitudes to be competent in pain care. To inspire and educate young health professionals about pain management we suggest the development of future pain leaders may require a different approach that recognizes personal stories of pain, includes a local pain champion and incorporates a model of mentorship.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".