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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.180
Threshold uncertainty score0.977

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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