Pain assessment and treatment in bleeding disorders: The need for social work specific education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this research was to examine what social workers currently understand and practice in pain management, specifically in bleeding disorder care. First, a scoping review was conducted to examine the breadth of research relevant to social work in pain management and bleeding disorders. Second, qualitative interviews were conducted with members of the Canadian Social Workers in Hemophilia Care (CSWHC) to identify the current state of understanding of the social work role in pain management and to explore the requirements for future pain education. \nThe research question for the scoping review was: What do social workers currently contribute to pain management in patients at risk of pain with chronic disease? In total, there were 13 articles included. These articles discussed three core social work interventions utilized in pain management practice: instrumental services, counselling services, and assessments. Advocacy and policy development were noted in a small number of these studies and require further development and research. \nTo address the overall aim of this project, qualitative interviews were conducted with 12 members of the CSWHC and examined using thematic analysis. The two research questions guiding the inquiry were: 1) What do social workers in the CSWHC currently understand about pain and bleeding disorder care and their practice, and 2) What specific pain knowledge and training is prioritized by social workers in the CSWHC. Four themes were developed: 1) Limited comprehension of key issues related to pain; 2) Conditioned to push through pain; 3) Expanding pain knowledge to enhance practice; 4) How we practice social work and choose to step in. \nThe findings from each study were synthesized and indicated there are common elements of the social work role in pain management and bleeding disorder care. While assessments were identified in both studies, the types of assessments explicitly used in pain management require further study. This study identified that future education and research is required in knowledge of pain mechanisms, assessments specific to pain, and the awareness of non-pharmacological pain interventions. Advocacy and policy development require further development in the understanding and function of daily practice.
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 | 0.028 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".