Vulnerable Patients' Psychosocial Experiences in a Group-Based, Integrative Pain Management Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To use a psychosocial framework to examine the pain experiences of low-income, ethnically diverse patients before and after an Integrative Pain Management Program (IPMP). Design and methods: IPMP is a 12-week, multimodal pain group incorporating mindfulness, acupuncture, massage, education, movement, and health coaching. The authors conducted semistructured interviews at the beginning, end, and 3 months following completion of IPMP. Interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed and analyzed using inductive coding methods. Setting: A primary care clinic in San Francisco, CA, serving low-income, ethnically diverse patients, many of whom are marginally housed and living with disabilities. Subjects: Forty-one patients with a diagnosis of chronic pain, currently receiving prescription opioids and referred by their primary care provider, who participated in IPMP. Results: Authors thematically analyzed 104 individual interviews with 41 IPMP participants, including 41 baseline, 35 three-month follow-up, and 28 six-month follow-up. Before IPMP, participants described a psychologic “vicious cycle” of pain symptoms that worsened with movement and anxiety, while increasing their sense of disempowerment and social isolation. Following IPMP, patients reported using new strategies to manage pain, including lowering medication use, resulting in an emerging sense of psychologic resilience, and more social connections. Conclusions: IPMP offers an accessible model for addressing psychosocial aspects of chronic pain. Vulnerable patients engaged with integrative medicine groups and developed new perspectives and tools for managing their pain; they emerged feeling hopeful and resilient. These results support the use of integrative medicine groups for targeting psychosocial aspects of chronic pain within primary 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 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 | 0.002 | 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".