Qualitative analysis of long-term chronic pain program management outcomes: Veterans and civilians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
LAY SUMMARY This study sought to determine how much patients with chronic pain could be helped to function better long after completing a four-week interdisciplinary pain management program. Comments from 16 Veterans and 23 civilians four months to four years after the end of the program showed 10 common themes: 1) gratefulness for their treatment in the program, 2) improved ability to function, 3) better coping strategies and confidence, 4) empowered to overcome daily challenges, 5) on a path to rehabilitation and recovery, 6) the need for support groups, 7) still had struggles, 8) the need for additional follow-up to maintain gains, 9) wishing they had attended the program sooner, and 10) would recommend the program to others. Veterans’ comments were no different from those of civilians. Results emphasize that Veterans and civilians share a common experience and maintain their benefits from interdisciplinary care in managing chronic pain. On the basis of these findings, clinicians have opportunities to improve quality and apply new services to the program.
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 | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".