From (Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care) policy to implementation: A retrospective look at a community-based patient-centered model of care for chronic pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Chronic pain is one of the most widely recognized, disabling, and expensive health problems in Canada. Interdisciplinary multimodal pain management is effective in helping chronic pain patients lessen symptoms and reclaim functionality, but most patients lack access to such treatments.Aim The aim of this study was to describe the development and implementation of a publicly funded and patient-centered model of care in the community.Methods The study was set in the Pain & Wellness Centre (PWC) in Vaughan, the only community-based chronic pain clinic in Ontario funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (MOHLTC) as a demonstration project of a template for similar future community clinics. The study is descriptive, including a brief review of the Ontario comprehensive pain strategy framework and an overview of the PWC and the process involved in the development of an interdisciplinary pain program (IDP), based on the biopsychosocial model of chronic pain management.Results During a 2.5-year period, the PWC has offered 1055 new patient medical consultations and 1921 follow-up visits and admitted 242 patients in the IDP program (demonstrating significant success in patient outcomes at the 3-month exit from the program). It established robust outcomes research, organized educational programs for pain trainees, and cultivated a collaborative relationship with the Toronto Academic Pain Medicine (TAPMI) network and the community at large.Conclusions This demonstration program has shown the feasibility and applicability of the principles of the MOHLTC comprehensive pain strategy, providing an effective, evidence-based, and accountable approach to chronic pain diagnosis and management in the community.
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 | 0.006 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".