Perspectives of patients with depression and chronic pain about bone health after a fragility fracture: A qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Compromised bone health is often associated with depression and chronic pain. OBJECTIVE: To examine: (1) the experience of existing depression and chronic nonfracture pain in patients with a fragility fracture; and (2) the effects of the fracture on depression and pain. DESIGN: A phenomenological study guided by Giorgi's analytical procedures. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Fracture patients who reported taking prescription medication for one or more comorbidities, excluding compromised bone health. MAIN VARIABLES STUDIED: Patients were interviewed within 6 weeks of their fracture, and 1 year later. Interview questions addressed the recent fracture and patients' experience with bone health and their other health conditions, such as depression and chronic pain, including the medications taken for these conditions. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients (5 men, 21 women) aged 45-84 years old with hip (n = 5) and nonhip (n = 21) fractures were recruited. Twenty-one participants reported depression and/or chronic nonfracture pain, of which seven reported having both depression and chronic pain. Two themes were consistent, based on our analysis: (1) depression and chronic pain overshadowed attention to bone health; and (2) the fracture exacerbated reported experiences of existing depression and chronic pain. CONCLUSION: Experiences with depression and pain take priority over bone health and may worsen as a result of the fracture. Health care providers treating fragility fractures might ask patients about depression and pain and take appropriate steps to address patients' more general emotional and physical state. PATIENT CONTRIBUTION: A patient representative was involved in the study conception, data interpretation and manuscript writing.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".