Advancing the pain management in older adults agenda forward through the development of key research and education priorities: A Canadian perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The undermanagement of pain in older adults has been identified as a problem worldwide.Aims: The purpose of this research is to identify priority areas in education and research for future development with the aim of improving pain management in older persons. In addition, barriers to addressing these priorities are identified.Methods: This mixed methods study, based on a modified Delphi approach, included three distinct components: (1) a qualitative component using focus groups with key informants or experts in the field of pain management in older adults (n = 17), (2) a scoping review of the literature, and (3) a survey of ranked responses completed by the same key informants who attended the focus groups. Thematic analysis was used to identify the initial list of issues and descriptive statistics were used for ranking them.Results: A number of concerns related to both education and research were frequently endorsed by participants. For education, they identified the need for more content in both undergraduate and continuing education programs related to documenting about pain; assessing pain, and learning about the complexities of pain. Research priorities included the need to explore successful practice models; costs of untreated pain; effects of mobility on pain; and patient preferences for pain management. Key barriers to addressing these barriers included lack of staff time and resources and unfamiliarity with pain assessment tools.Conclusion: These findings highlight priority issues related to pain management in older adults from a nationwide perspective.
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 | 0.008 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".