MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4385237658 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2023-072048

Understanding the chronic pain journey and coping strategies that patients use to manage their chronic pain: a qualitative, patient-led, Canadian study

2023· article· en· W4385237658 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Marcia Bruce, Elena Lopatina, J. Leicester R. Hodge, Karen A. Moffat, Sophia A. Khan, Pamela Pyle, Sherri Kashuba, Tracy Wasylak, Maria Santana

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsAlberta HealthUniversity of CalgaryAlberta Health Services
FundersAlberta Health Services
KeywordsMedicineChronic painQualitative researchCoping (psychology)Alternative medicineChronic diseasePhysical therapyPsychiatryFamily medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To gain an insight into coping strategies that people living with chronic pain use to self-manage their pain. DESIGN: This qualitative Patient-oriented Research study used the Patient and Community Engagement Research approach. It was conducted by people with chronic pain lived experience, ensuring that patient perspective and needs were considered and addressed throughout the research cycle. Purposeful sampling was used for recruiting individuals living with chronic pain. A focus group and one-on-one semi-structured interviews were conducted via videoconference. The data were analysed iteratively using inductive thematic analysis and narrative story analysis. SETTING: Calgary, Alberta, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Eleven adult participants, between the ages of 18 and 65, who self-identified as living with chronic pain for greater than 2 years. RESULTS: Three main themes emerged from the data: (1) the elements of chronic pain, (2) the chronic pain journey to acceptance and (3) daily coping strategies for chronic pain. Participants thought it was important to discuss these three themes because the daily coping strategies that they employed at any given time (theme 3) depended on the factors discussed in themes 1 and 2. Overlaying all of this is also a grieving process that people living with chronic pain may have to go through more than once. Participants also identified recommendations for healthcare professionals to support people living with chronic pain. CONCLUSIONS: Dealing with chronic pain affects all aspects of a person's life and involves a grieving process. When treating patients with chronic pain, it is important for healthcare professionals to understand the journey that people living with chronic pain go through, not just coping strategies. Diagnosis is critical for a patient's acceptance and in helping them find their new normal where they can employ daily coping strategies to manage their pain.

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)0.008
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 score0.506
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0160.008
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.212
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations14
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation→French-language works237,207→