MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3091975250 · doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckaa166.1183

International survey: real-world pain management strategies

2020· article· en· W3091975250 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael D. Hagen, Anca Georgescu

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Public Health · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Pain Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePain managementChinaFamily medicinePhysical therapyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Pain is a nearly universal experience, but little is known about how people treat pain. This international survey assessed real-world pain management strategies. Methods From 13-31 January, 2020, an online survey funded by GSK Consumer Healthcare was conducted in local languages in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Mexico, Poland, Russia, Spain, Sweden, UK, and USA. Adults were recruited from online panels of people who agreed to participate in surveys. Quotas ensured nationally representative online populations based on age, gender, and region. Results Of 19,000 people (1000/country) who completed the survey, 18,602 (98%) had ever experienced physical pain; 76% said they would like to control their pain better. Presented with 17 pain-management strategies and asked to select the ones they use in the order of use, respondents chose an average of 4 strategies each. The most commonly selected strategies were pain medication (65%), rest/sleep (54%), consult a doctor (31%), physical therapy (31%), and nonpharmacologic action (eg, heat/cold application; 29%). Of those who use pain medication, 56% take some other action first. Only 36% of those who treat pain do so immediately; 56% first wait to see if it will resolve spontaneously. Top reasons for waiting include a desire to avoid medication (37%); willingness to tolerate less severe pain (33%); concerns about side effects (21%) or dependency (21%); and wanting to avoid a doctor's visit unless pain is severe or persistent (21%). Nearly half (42%) of those who take action to control pain have visited ≥1 healthcare professional (doctor 31%; pharmacist 18%; other 17%) about pain. Conclusions This large global survey shows that people employ a range of strategies to manage pain but still wish for better pain control. Although pain medication is the most commonly used strategy, many people postpone or avoid its use. Key messages More than three-quarters (76%) of respondents across countries seek better pain control. Pain medication and rest/sleep consultation are the most common pain management strategies. More than half of respondents (56%) wait to see if pain will resolve spontaneously before taking any action, and 56% of those who use pain medication try some other approach first.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.004

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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Public HealthSame topicPediatric Pain Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207