Exploring the Meaning and Experience of Chronic Pain with People Who Live with a Dog: A Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pain is a significant burden for those with chronic disease and negatively impacts quality of life, causing disability and substantial work and health-care costs. Chronic pain has been identified as one of the most important current and future causes of morbidity and disability across the world. Living with a dog has been associated with greater physical activity, less disability, more social ties to the community, and improved mental health. In this study, we sought answers to the research question, “What is the meaning and experience of chronic pain for people who live with a dog?” Using a descriptive qualitative research design, we conducted telephone interviews with 12 patients who lived with a dog, attending a tertiary chronic pain program in western Canada. Transcribed interviews were subject to thematic and interpretive analysis. Participants ranged in age from 39 to 70 years of age (average 54 years) and had experienced chronic pain for an average of 15 years. The analysis identified four themes that gave under-standing as to how people who live with a dog experience chronic pain: dog gives life meaning; dog as caregiver; dog gives emotional support; and dog provides companionship. For those experiencing chronic pain, living with a dog was reported to positively impact their quality of life, mental wellbeing, physical activity, and social interaction. For some participants, living with a dog provided a reason to live and focus on the future. For people with chronic pain, living with a dog may enhance the quality of their lives and provide support that mitigates their suffering and enables them to live a more meaningful life.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".