A Qualitative Study of the Latter Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Patients Living With Chronic Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This qualitative study examined the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the lives of patients living with chronic pain (CP). Patients referred to an interdisciplinary pain management program between July and December of 2021 were asked to respond to the question: "How did the COVID-19 pandemic affect your life?" Fifty-four patients provided comments in response to this question. The comments were analyzed using an inductive approach. Ten themes emerged: (1) psychological state, (2) limitations on social life and activities, (3) minimal to no effect, (4) beliefs and opinions associated with COVID-19, (5) family dynamics, (6) healthcare disruptions, (7) pandemic-related fear, (8) changes in work, (9) change in pain, and (10) getting COVID-19. These themes mirror those found during the onset of the pandemic, with the addition of theme #4. Themes demonstrate the challenges experienced by individuals living with CP, in addition to new developments in the latter portion of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is important to understand the ramifications of shutdowns, so we are better able to address issues that occur in their aftermath.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".