Patients Response to Interventional Care for Chronic Pain Study (PRICS): A Cross-Sectional Survey of Community-Based Pain Clinics in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Non-image guided injection treatments ("nerve blocks") are commonly provided in community pain clinics in Ontario for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) but remain controversial. AIM: We explored patients' perspectives of nerve blocks for CNCP. METHODS: We administered a 33-item cross-sectional survey to patients living with CNCP pain attending four community-based pain clinics in Ontario, Canada. The survey captured demographic information and asked about patient experiences with nerve blocks. RESULTS: Among 616 patients that were approached, 562 (91%) provided a completed survey. The mean age of respondents was 53 (SD 12), 71% were female, and the majority (57%) reported living with CNCP for more than a decade. Fifty-eight percent had been receiving nerve blocks for their pain for >3 years, 51% on a weekly frequency. Since receiving nerve blocks, patients self-reported a median improvement in pain intensity of 2.5 points (95% CI -2.5 to -3.0) on an 11-point numeric rating scale and 66% reported stopping or reducing prescription medications, including opioids. The majority who were not retired (62%) were receiving disability benefits and were unable to work in any capacity. When asked what impact cessation of nerve blocks would have, most employed patients (52%) reported they would be unable to work, and the majority indicated their ability to function across multiple domains would decrease. CONCLUSION: Our respondents who received nerve blocks for CNCP attribute important pain relief and functional improvement to this intervention. Randomized trials and clinical practice guidelines are urgently needed to optimize the evidence-based use of nerve blocks for CNCP.
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 | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| 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".