The development and efficacy of an interdisciplinary chronic pelvic pain program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Chronic pelvic pain (CPP) is a significant issue, and approximately 14% of women experience CPP once in their life-time. While interdisciplinary pain management is considered the gold standard of treatment, few programs offer this type of treatment in Canada. The aims of this paper were to: 1) describe the development of an interdisciplinary CPP program; and 2) demonstrate changes in patient-related outcomes after attending an interdisciplinary CPP program. METHODS: Referrals were received from community urologists and obstetricians/gynecologists, and pain physicians at the Michael G. DeGroote Pain Clinic. Patients attended an orientation session, completed an interdisciplinary assessment, and if appropriate, attended an eight-day interdisciplinary CPP program. Each day consisted of group-based pelvic floor physiotherapy, psychoeducation, goal-setting, cognitive behavioral therapy, and mindfulness. Psychometric questionnaires were completed pre- and post-program by patients, and paired sample t-tests were used to evaluate the changes in patient-related outcomes after attending the program. RESULTS: Thirty-seven female patients completed the program, and results demonstrate that the CPP program was associated with significant improvements in impact of pelvic pain on quality of life, readiness for change, and pain-related self-efficacy, as well as decreases in pain catastrophizing and fear of pain/re-injury. CONCLUSIONS: CPP is a complex condition that requires interdisciplinary management and care. The results of this study demonstrate the short-term benefits of an interdisciplinary CPP program, highlight the unique needs of women with CPP, and implicate multiple factors for programming and treatment.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".