MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2794101385 · doi:10.1177/2380084418763317

Patient Experience of Living with Orofacial Pain: An Interpretive Phenomenological Study

2018· article· en· W2794101385 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJDR Clinical & Translational Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChronic painOrofacial painInterpretative phenomenological analysisQualitative researchPsychologyPerspective (graphical)Phenomenological methodIdentity (music)MedicineClinical psychologyPhysical therapyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated the experience of living with chronic orofacial pain. Participating in this study's individual in-depth interviews were 6 participants with chronic orofacial pain who were undergoing treatment at a pain clinic. In consideration of the empirical nature of the study, the interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed from an interpretive phenomenological approach. The participants in the study experienced various types of loss as a result of chronic pain, such as the loss of employment, self-identity, and the ability to enjoy eating and engaging in social activities. Other findings revealed a disbelief among the families and medical community in the pain reported by the participants in this study. In addition, the current study explores the dissatisfaction of these participants with their journey through the health care system. Previous studies have concentrated on chronic pain predominantly through quantitative methods based on measurements, such as questionnaires. The biomedical aspects of pain are essential to report, yet the emphasis on this can result in overlooking the experience of living with chronic pain. Qualitative methodologies are necessary for gaining a more profound understanding of and appreciation for the individual patient and his or her unique perspective. The present study may benefit those living with chronic pain, since this sharing of experiences can help sufferers feel less isolated in their agony. The current article's intention is to report these experiences in such a way that chronic pain sufferers and laypeople can comprehend and relate to them. In addition, the findings of this study should promote the knowledge and understanding of health care providers who deal with chronic pain sufferers, so that treatment is provided with more empathy and compassion. Knowledge Transfer Statement: The findings of the present study may assist health care professionals interacting regularly with sufferers of chronic pain to gain a deeper understanding of the chronic pain experience and how to best support these patients.

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.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.153
GPT teacher head0.509
Teacher spread0.356 · 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