Evaluation of the quality of care of elderly patients with chronic and breakthrough pain treated with opioids: SAND study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the quality of care of elderly patients with treatment for chronic pain (CP) and breakthrough pain (BTP). METHODS: A cross-sectional observational study was conducted in 20 pain units, selecting patients aged 70 years or older with baseline controlled CP in treatment with opioids and a diagnosis of BTP. Patients were classified as first episode of BTP or patient in follow-up. The patients completed the SF-12 quality of life questionnaire, Brief Pain Inventory, Lattinen Index, and Edmonton Symptoms Assessment Scale. The patient's satisfaction with the treatment was evaluated through a visual analogue scale (VAS). RESULTS: A total of 199 patients were included with 67.7% women (132). There were 28.5% (55) attending the first visit for BTP and 71.5% (138) were on follow-up visits. On the physical component of the SF-12, 95% had a score below the mean for the Spanish general population and 44% had a score below the mean on the mental component. Worse scores were observed for women in the bodily pain dimension (p = .032) and in the overall physical component (p = .045). There were 62.9% (112) patients satisfied with the treatment for BTP. In the multivariate analysis, SF-12 physical component scores (p = .017) and patient's satisfaction with BTP treatment was better in follow-up visits (p = .031). CONCLUSIONS: All clinical parameters compared between first visit for the treatment of BTP and follow-up visits were improved, so the quality of care was also considered improved. Elderly women and non-oncologic patients were observed to be the population with worse symptom control.
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 | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".