Development and clinical feasibility testing of the Pain Treatment Planning Questionnaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Chronic pain is common in people with bleeding disorders and can complicate clinical management, impair quality of life, and contribute to disability. People living with bleeding disorders often seek advice on pain management from the bleeding disorder treatment team; however, lack of condition-specific assessment tools to guide clinical communication about pain are a barrier to care. Aims To develop and examine the clinical feasibility of a patient-reported outcome (PRO) tool designed to facilitate pain assessment and support clinical communication about pain for adults attending outpatient bleeding disorder clinics. Methods Tool development involved patient cognitive interviews and item refinement by a multidisciplinary clinician and patient working group. Clinical feasibility of the tool was evaluated with a survey of a small clinical sample in an outpatient bleeding disorder clinic. The Pain Treatment Planning Questionnaire (PTPQ) contains 28 items on the pain experience and treatments used to manage or prevent pain. Results Participants completing the feasibility testing (n=42, 62% male) reported mild mean pain scores (usual pain μ=2.4, SD=2.0) with the majority (57.1%) reporting persistent pain in the past 30 days. Median PTPQ completion time was five to seven minutes and mean item response rate was 95.2%. The majority (95.2%) of participants found the questionnaire easy to understand, reported no difficulty understanding items, and recommended no changes to the questionnaire. Conclusions Preliminary testing among a small sample in a clinical setting suggests that the PTPQ is a clinically feasible, acceptable, condition-specific PRO pain assessment tool for adult patients with bleeding disorders. Further testing is required to determine if the PTPQ affects treatment decision-making and patient outcomes.
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 | 0.006 | 0.034 |
| 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".