An exploration of pain experiences and their meaning in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Pain is a common symptom in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) which negatively influences quality of life. However, to date, patients9 experiences of pain have not been explored and there is little understanding of the manner in which patients9 make sense of these experiences. The aim of this study was to explore the experiences of pain and their meaning in individuals with moderate to severe COPD. Methods: Eight patients diagnosed with COPD who reported experiencing pain for greater than six months participated in in-depth interviews, with transcripts subjected to interpretative phenomenological analysis. Results: Five themes were identified. 9Ambiguity of pain experience9, encompassing patients9 frustrations related to healthcare professionals approach to and explanation for their pain and their need to legitimize their symptoms. 9Psychological reactions to pain9, outlining a mix of stoicism, depression and engagement in fear-avoidance behavior. 9Language and behaviour of pain9, portrays the intense imagery used to describe pain and its unpredictable nature. 9Pain complicates the clinical profile of COPD9, with higher levels of pain related to increased dyspnoea, fatigue and poor concentration. 9Altered identity perception9, describing patients9 reduced self-worth, and their sense of failure in not meeting the expectations of others. Conclusions: Patients9 narratives emphasise the difficulty in explaining the persistent presence of pain, threatening legitimacy and influencing feeling of frustration and self-worth. These responses should be considered by healthcare professionals when evaluating the presence of pain in COPD.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".