Partnering For Pain: a Priority Setting Partnership to identify patient-oriented research priorities for pediatric chronic pain in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic pain affects 1-3 million Canadian children and adolescents and their families. The primary objective of the Partnering For Pain project was to collaboratively identify the top 10 research priorities in pediatric chronic pain. METHODS: Partnering For Pain took a patient-oriented research approach and followed a modified James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) to identify the top research priorities in pediatric chronic pain according to people with lived experience (patients), family members and health care providers (clinicians). The PSP was completed in 4 phases between May and December 2018: 1) national survey of stakeholders, including those with lived experience with pediatric chronic pain, family members and clinicians who treat children with chronic pain, to gather priorities, 2) data processing, 3) interim prioritization by invited patients, family members and clinicians (former research participants or identified through pediatric chronic pain programs, patient partner organizations and steering committee member networks) and 4) in-person priority-setting workshop involving patients, family members and clinicians identified via steering committee networks and partner organizations, with evaluation of patient engagement. The process was led by a national steering committee of patient and parent partners, researchers and clinicians engaged in codesign, analysis and translation of project findings. RESULTS: In phase 1, 215 Canadians (86 patients [40.0%], 56 family members [26.0%] and 73 clinicians [34.0%]) submitted 540 potential priorities that were developed into 112 unique research questions (phase 2). Of the 112 questions, 63 were rated for importance by 57 participants (19 patients [33%], 17 family members [30%] and 21 clinicians [37%]) in phase 3. In phase 4, 20 participants (6 patients [30%], 6 family members [30%] and 8 clinicians [40%]) discussed the 25 most highly rated questions and reached consensus on the final top 10. INTERPRETATION: The final priorities address pediatric chronic pain prevention, impact and treatment, as well as delivery, access and coordination of care. The priorities reflect a directed and collaborative call to action to improve existing pediatric pain research and care. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Chronic pain affects 1 in 5 children and teens. This means that 1-3 million Canadian youth deal with pain lasting months to years. This pain gets in the way of being active, sleeping, going to school, and getting along with friends and family. Youth with chronic pain and their families are experts on what it's like to live with pain, but, until now, research has not asked what issues they care about most. The goal of the Partnering For Pain project was to develop a list of the 10 most important things we still need to learn about chronic pain during childhood according to people who live with it, their families and health care providers. We did this in 4 steps: 1) a survey with 215 people who shared 540 concerns they have about chronic pain in childhood, 2) turning those concerns into questions that can be answered by research, 3) a survey with 57 people who ranked how important each research question was and 4) an in-person discussion with 20 people who chose the top 10 research priorities. Each step included Canadians who have had chronic pain during childhood, their families and health care providers. The final top 10 list has questions about how to better prevent and care for children and teens with chronic pain. These priorities make sure that future research focuses on what is most important to people who will use it in their everyday lives. Project video: https://youtu.be/wA-RwrFiSPk. Project website: www.partneringforpain.com.
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 | 0.044 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".