Help-seeking behavior among community-dwelling adults with chronic pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Some individuals with chronic pain do not seek care. This decision may be due to characteristics of the individual, pain, and/or their health professional(s).Aims This study aimed to identify and compare features of individuals with chronic pain, their pain and general health, and their health care professional between community-dwelling adults who did and did not seek care.Methods Randomly selected adults were mailed a study questionnaire that screened for chronic pain (pain persisting ≥3 months) and asked about their general well-being (Short Form [SF]-36), pain location (body diagram), pain intensity and characteristics (Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs), experiences with health care professionals (Chronic Illness Resources Survey), and visits made to health professionals over the past year. Respondents were categorized as help-seeking (≥1 visit in the past year) and non-help-seeking (zero visits in the past year).Results Six percent of respondents (44/696) were non-help-seeking. These respondents differed in individual, pain, and health care professional characteristics when compared to those who did seek care. Specifically, when other variables were controlled, non-help-seeking individuals were less likely to be male (relative risk [RR] = 0.39, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.18–0.86), report comorbid conditions (RR = 0.46, 95% CI, 0.22–0.98), report being treated as an equal partner in decision making (RR = 0.40, 95% CI, 0.18–0.93), and rate their health care professional as important to their pain management (RR = 0.39, 95% CI, 0.18–0.85). They were more likely to use over-the-counter medication to manage their pain (RR = 2.52, 95% CI, 1.14–5.58).Conclusions Experiences with health professionals play a role in determining whether an individual manages his or her pain independently. Future research should explore the safety of those who do not seek care.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".