PRESSURED TOUCH FOOT CARE TO RELIEVE CHRONIC PAIN AND IMPROVE QUALITY OF LIFE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Chronic pain affects many older adults and is a leading cause of disability. It is often treated pharmacologically, but evidence indicates touch therapy modalities are beneficial. Purpose: To implement a therapeutic touch program for adults enrolled in a Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE) to help reduce chronic pain and improve quality of life for those patients enrolled in this project. Method Twelve participants in an assisted living facility with chronic foot pain were initially selected by the PACE Family Nurse Practitioner (FNP) for home visits with this Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) student for a foot care and pressured touch intervention to occur once a month for 3 months. The McGill Pain and Quality of Life Scores questionnaires were administered before each intervention. Results Four participants completed all three interventions. Every participant experienced a decrease in pain pre- and post-intervention and month-to-month of 15% or more. Three participants had experiences of complicated grief and had a decrease in quality-of-life scores over the 3 months. The participant without complicated grief had an improvement in the quality-of-life scores with pain reduction. Conclusions This small home intervention project for chronic foot pain demonstrated that foot care and pressured touch may be a cost-effective adjunct therapy for reducing pain. Chronic pain can be complicated by grief, which must be considered when looking to support elder wellness and quality of life. Keywords: Chronic pain, therapeutic touch
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".