MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4294954882 · doi:10.1080/09638288.2022.2117864

Virtual care exercise interventions in multidisciplinary chronic pain clinics: a qualitative study of perspectives of adults living with chronic pain

2022· article· en· W4294954882 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Kiren Kaloty, Julia Rudecki, Vanessa Craine, Alexander Moyes, Robert Armstrong, Megan Baxter, Judith Hunter, Nida Mustafa, Gillian Grant, Kyle Vader, Rachael L. Bosma

Bibliographic record

VenueDisability and Rehabilitation · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityWomen's College HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPsychological interventionChronic painMedicineQualitative researchMultidisciplinary approachPhysical therapyActivities of daily livingNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Chronic pain affects 1 in 4 Canadians and is a leading contributor of disability. Although virtual care has become more prevalent, it is unclear how adults living with chronic pain perceive virtual delivery of exercise interventions within multidisciplinary chronic pain clinics (MCPC). This study explores the perspectives of adults living with chronic pain regarding their perceived barriers and facilitators and recommendations when implementing virtual care exercise interventions within MCPCs. METHODS: We conducted an interpretive description qualitative study based on semi-structured interviews with adults (age ≥18 years) living with chronic pain from a MCPC in Toronto, Canada, between March 1 and April 30, 2021. RESULTS: = 15) interviews of adults living with chronic pain. We identified eight themes that addressed the study objectives: 1) virtual care supplements in-person care, 2) virtual care improves accessibility, 3) impact of technology on participation, 4) navigating the home environment, 5) impact of pain on participation, 6) impact of supervision and feedback, 7) the need for tailored care, and 8) the need for preparation and additional support. CONCLUSION: Our results reveal that adults living with chronic pain view virtual care exercise interventions positively however, the implementation of these interventions must be carefully considered within MCPCs. Specifically, virtual care was considered an excellent adjunct to in-person care but should not replace it completely.Implications for RehabilitationChronic pain is a leading contributor of disability.Exercise interventions are recommended component of comprehensive pain management.Virtual delivery of exercise interventions are becoming more prevalent.Adults living with chronic pain view virtual care exercise interventions positively as they can supplement in-person care and improve access to this type of 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.142

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.006
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.367 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDisability and RehabilitationSame topicTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationFrench-language works237,207