MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2745420626 · doi:10.1177/0825859717724686

The Influence of Physical and Psychosocial Factors on Disruptive Pain Among Seriously Ill Home Care Patients

2017· article· en· W2745420626 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jacob G. S. Davidson, Dawn M. Guthrie

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Palliative Care · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Management and Opioid Use
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
FundersWilfrid Laurier University
KeywordsPsychosocialMedicinePalliative carePsychologyPsychiatryNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the prevalence and correlates of disruptive pain in a sample of seriously ill home care patients in the Canadian province of Ontario. METHODS: The design was a cross-sectional analysis of secondary data from 2757 patients aged 65+. RESULTS: Overall, 69.0% (n = 1902) had any level of pain and 41.6% (n = 1146) indicated that their pain disrupted their usual activities. In the univariate analysis of demographics, the risk of disruptive pain decreased significantly with increasing age ( P < .0001) and was significantly less common among men ( P = .0015). Multivariate analysis showed that unsteady gait (relative risk [RR] = 1.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18-1.59), arthritis (RR = 1.35; 95% CI, 1.23-1.49), symptoms of depression (RR = 1.24; 95% CI, 1.13-1.37), and declines in social activity that the patient rated as distressing (RR = 1.19; 95% CI, 1.08-1.31) were independently associated with disruptive pain. CONCLUSION: Disruptive pain is highly prevalent in this group, and the key factors associated with this outcome represent physical as well as psychosocial domain areas.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.323

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.298 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Palliative CareSame topicPain Management and Opioid UseFrench-language works237,207