Health utilities in people with chronic pain using a population-level survey and linked health care administrative data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Health utilities are a preference-based measure of health-related quality of life that facilitates comparison of disease burden across conditions. We estimated utilities using a population-based, matched sample of adolescents and adults with and without chronic pain, controlling for comorbidity. Ontarians aged ≥12 years with and without chronic pain were identified from the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) 2000-2001 and 2009-2010 and linked to their provincial health care administrative data. Individuals with chronic pain were matched to those without using age, sex, survey year, and a propensity score for having chronic pain estimated from a rurality index, income quintile, and comorbidity. The Health Utilities Index Mark 3 instrument, included in the Canadian Community Health Survey, was used. Mean utilities were calculated for each group. Utility decrement for chronic pain was also calculated for each matched pair. A total of 65,246 responses were available for analysis. After matching, there were 12,146 matched pairs with and without pain. In the matched cohort, mean age was 54 years (SD 12); 61% were female. The matched cohort with chronic pain had a mean utility of 0.59 (95% confidence interval 0.58-0.59), and the decrement associated with chronic pain was 0.32 (95% confidence interval 0.31-0.32). Utilities in people with chronic pain were lower than, and decrements larger than, those seen with most other chronic diseases including heart disease, diabetes, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. These data will be useful to inform priorities and future strategies for the prevention and control of chronic pain.
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 | 0.082 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".