A shared love: reciprocity and hopefulness in romantic relationships of young adults with chronic pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Chronic pain (≥3 months) creates pain-related challenges that may negatively affect how young adults perceive themselves, and, indeed, they often report feeling different compared to peers and prospective romantic partners. Most studies of romantic relationships in young adults living with a long-term condition (including pain), do not consider the perspective of their partner. We present the findings of a qualitative, exploratory interview study (Phase 2 of a mixed methods study). This qualitative phase aimed to explore how young adults with chronic pain and their partners navigate romantic relationships. We focused on how young adults perceive and experience their romantic relationships and the impact, challenges, and benefits associated with living with chronic pain. Methods: This study used remote (videoconferencing) photo-elicitation interviews with a convenience sample of young adults with chronic pain (aged 18-25 years, UK and Canada) and their partners. Recruitment occurred via social media, pain-related websites and organizations, and professional networks. Five young adults with chronic pain from the UK and Canada formed the e-Advisory Group and provided detailed advice throughout the study. Data analysis used the principles of inductive reflexive thematic analysis to explore the dimensions and meaning of romantic relationships from the views of young adults with chronic pain and their romantic partners. Findings: Sixteen young adults participated (seven couples plus two young adults with pain who were interviewed without their partner). The young adults with chronic pain were ages 18-24 years (mean 21.88 years, SD 2.23). Four major interpretive themes were generated: Kindred spirits-we just sort of work; Loving in everyday acts-it's not above and beyond, it's concerned supportiveness; It's OK to be vulnerable with each other-we can talk it through; and You can't see over the horizon-hopes and fears for the future. Discussion: Hopefulness and reciprocity were key to the stories shared by the young adults in the current study. Despite the challenges and limitations imposed by chronic pain, their relationships were characterized by partnership and reciprocity, and they were able to be vulnerable with each other and offer each other support.
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 | 0.026 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".