Information is power: a qualitative study exploring the lived experiences of patients with degenerative cervical radiculopathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Degenerative cervical radiculopathy (DCR) can lead to severe pain, paraesthesia, and/or motor weakness, resulting in significant morbidity, disability, and reduced quality of life. Typically, individuals suffer from prolonged symptoms, with time to complete recovery spanning months to years. Little is known about the impact DCR has on peoples' lives. Therefore, this study aimed to explore the everyday experiences of individuals living with DCR. A qualitative study was conducted through an interpretivist lens exploring the experiences of participants. Participants were purposefully recruited and interviewed with 2 research team members. Transcripts were independently analyzed by 2 reviewers and coding was finalized by consensus. Analysis was performed using an interpretative phenomenological approach, with emergent themes mapped onto the 5 domains of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health framework. Eleven participants were interviewed between December 2021 and April 2022. Three themes emerged: the biopsychosocial impact of DCR, role of the health care provider, and uncertainty surrounding DCR. Pain and paraesthesia were the most common symptoms experienced by participants, leading to significant psychological distress and impact to daily activities, most notably driving, housecleaning, sleep, and ability to work. Participants described the uncertainty they experienced as a result of the unpredictable nature of DCR and the important role that health care providers play in their journey with DCR. Health care providers were seen acting as either a facilitator or a barrier to their recovery. The findings from this study can be used by clinicians providing patient-centered care to better understand the experiences of people with DCR.
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 | 0.020 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".