Surgery patients’ perspectives of their role in postoperative pain: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Post-operative pain is a major factor in surgical recovery. There is evidence that pain remains undermanaged. Complications related to the undermanagement of acute pain can increase length of stay and contribute to readmission and the development of chronic pain. It is well acknowledged that pain assessment is critical to pain management and that self-report of pain is the gold standard. As a result, patients play a central role in their own pain management. A preliminary review of the literature failed to provide a clear or consistent description of this key patient role. Objective: A scoping review was conducted with the objective of reviewing literature that described adult patients' perspectives or highlighted the adult patient's role in post-operative pain management, including assessment. Understanding patients' attitudes toward their roles in pain management through a scoping review of the current literature is critical for informing research and improvements in post-operative pain management. Design: Scoping review. Methods: The databases searched for the review included CINAHL, MEDLINE, PubMed, and SCOPUS (ending May 2022). Thematic analysis, using the methodology of Arksey and O'Malley, was applied to the records identified. Results: . Conclusions: This paper provides one of the first known comprehensive scoping reviews of surgical patients' perspectives of their role in pain management, including assessment, and offers an important global awareness of this patient role. The findings suggest that improved understanding of patients' perspectives of their roles in pain assessment and treatment is critical to improving post-operative pain management. Engaging patients as partners in their care can facilitate enhanced communication and improving congruence in pain assessment and treatment decisions. The complex nature of patients' beliefs, expectations, and subjective experiences of pain present challenges for health care practitioners. These challenges can be met with enhanced education for patients, respect for patients' beliefs and expectations, and the provision of dignified 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 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 | 0.015 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".