Women’s experiences of navigating chronic pain within the context of living with an episodic disability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Of the 6.2 million Canadians aged 15 years or older who live with disability, 61% have disabilities that are not static or continuous. These dynamic conditions are known as episodic disabilities and many disproportionately experienced by women. Chronic pain is also a common feature associated with many episodic disabilities. The purpose of this article is to explore the experience of chronic pain for women living with episodic disabilities. Methods: This qualitative study draws on the tenets of interpretive description. Thirty women, with one or more episodic disabilities and chronic pain, participated in a semi-structured interview and answered questions about their chronic pain levels, using Von Korff et al.’s graded chronic pain scale. Results: Women experienced gendered treatment within the healthcare system and reported that they were frequently dismissed by their healthcare providers, most often physicians. Healthcare professionals’ practices around pain assessment were another common challenge for women. Women who were able to access financial support from government disability programs were more likely to access allied health professionals. Many of the holistic strategies that women researched and used to treat chronic pain were self-enacted. While diet, exercise, and other self-care activities are general health promotion strategies for all, they were seen as essential aspects of living that helped women have control over chronic pain and modifying the course of their episodic disability. Conclusion: Living with chronic pain and an episodic disability is complex. The findings of this study present the impact that gendered treatment in the healthcare system has on women who live with an episodic disability and experience chronic pain. It is evident that the current system did not meet the needs of the women in our study and system changes could result in better experiences, more disclosure of alternative therapies, and increase women’s agency in their care.
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 | 0.007 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".