Chronic Pain among Individuals Experiencing Homelessness and Its Interdependence with Opioid and Other Substance Use and Mental Illness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic pain and substance use disorders are serious conditions that are prevalent among homeless populations. The aim of this study was to examine the association between chronic pain and substance use among individuals experiencing homelessness and mental illness. We analyzed cross-sectional data from two sites of the At Home/Chez Soi study (Vancouver and Toronto) using bivariate statistics and multivariate logistic regression. Substance use and chronic pain parameters were assessed with the Maudsley Addiction Profile and purpose-designed short instruments. The sample comprised 828 participants. Mean age was 42.4 years and 54% reported chronic pain. In bivariate analysis, chronic pain was significantly associated with use of opioids and stimulants, daily substance use, polysubstance use and injecting as route of administration. In multivariate analysis, only daily substance use (OR: 1.46, 95% CI: 1.02–2.09) and injecting (OR: 1.81, 95% CI: 1.08–3.05) remained as significant associated factors, whereas neither use of opioids nor use of stimulants specifically were significantly associated with chronic pain. Among participants with chronic pain, daily substance users (50% vs. 22%, p < 0.001) and injectors (66% vs. 24%, p < 0.001) were more likely to use non-prescribed medication for pain. Participants with daily substance use were less likely to receive professional treatment (52% vs. 64%, p = 0.017) and prescribed pain medication (42% vs. 54%, p = 0.023). Our findings suggest an association of chronic pain with patterns related to severity of substance use rather than to specific substance use in homeless persons with mental illness. Interventions aiming at prevention and treatment of chronic pain in this population should consider severity of substance use and associated risk behavior over use of specific substances.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".