A Qualitative Study of the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on a Sample of Patients With Chronic Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This qualitative phenomenological study examined the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the lives of patients living with chronic pain. Patients referred to an intensive interdisciplinary pain management program between June 2020 to June 2021 were asked, "How did the COVID-19 pandemic affect your life?" as part of their interdisciplinary assessment. Ninety patients (50 Veterans, 40 civilians) provided comments to this question, which were independently organized into themes using an inductive approach by 4 researchers. Nine main themes emerged: (1) changed psychological state, (2) minimal to no effect, (3) affected personal life activities, (4) changes in accessing care, (5) changes in work/education situation, (6) changes in family dynamics, (7) experiencing more annoyances, (8) COVID-19 pandemic is a barrier to making positive changes, and (9) got COVID-19. Themes are consistent with topics of interest in light of this ongoing, global stressor. Most commonly reported themes reflected changes in psychological well-being and changes in access to care, highlighting similarities between life with chronic pain and life under the pandemic for this group.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".