MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3024602265 · doi:10.1080/24740527.2020.1768836

Pain management program outcomes in veterans with chronic pain and comparison with nonveterans

2020· article· en· W3024602265 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jane Jomy, Eleni G. Hapidou

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Pain · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityMcMaster University Medical Centre
FundersChronic Pain Centre of Excellence for Canadian Veterans
KeywordsMedicineMultivariate analysis of variancePain catastrophizingChronic painPopulationPhysical therapyCoping (psychology)Pain managementClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: In Canada, 41% of veterans experience chronic pain compared to the general population (20%). Many veterans with chronic pain also have comorbid disorders such as depression and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), causing increased pain interference and disability.Aim: This study aims to investigate the effectiveness of a 4-week interdisciplinary pain management program at the Michael G. DeGroote Pain Clinic in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, and to explore differences in pain experience and treatment outcomes between veterans and nonveterans in the program.Methods: Data were obtained from psychometric measures completed by 68 veterans and 68 nonveterans enrolled in the pain management program. By matching groups for age and gender, scores were compared between veterans and nonveterans. Outcomes investigated include catastrophizing, pain traumatization, stages of change, acceptance of pain, and program satisfaction. Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted to examine session (admission–discharge) and group (veteran–nonveteran) differences, and independent t tests were used to examine differences in satisfaction measures.Results: Results showed that the program was effective for all participants, with significant differences between admission and discharge on several measures. However, veterans experienced significantly greater improvements in pain catastrophizing, kinesiophobia, pain traumatization, pain acceptance, stages of change, and pain coping, compared to nonveterans (P < 0.05). Though no significant differences in program satisfaction were found between groups, case managers evaluated veterans as having achieved greater benefits from the program.Conclusion: This study presents evidence supporting the effectiveness of an interdisciplinary pain management program in addressing pain-related variables in veterans and nonveterans and provides insight into how pain management is experienced differently by veterans.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of PainSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207