Community directed assessment of pain in a northern Saskatchewan Cree community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Indigenous Elder advisors in Pelican Narrows, a Cree community in Northern Saskatchewan, have indicated that Western pain scales may not be responsive tools for pain assessments within their community. This study employed a mixed methods research design that involved two phases. Phase one was the development of a pain scale in collaboration with an Elder and a Knowledge Keeper. Phase two was a pilot of the CDPS utilised during virtual physiotherapy sessions for chronic back pain. Twenty-seven participants completed the pre-physiotherapy treatment questionnaires, and 10 participants engaged in semi-structured interviews (9 community members; 1 healthcare provider). A weighted kappa analysis yielded k = 0.696, indicating a good agreement between the CDPS and Faces Pain Scale-Revised in terms of documenting participants' pain. Qualitative data from interviews with community members revealed three major themes: 1) Learnings Regarding Pain Scales, 2) Patient Centered Care; and 3) Strength-Based Solutions for Improving Pain Communication. Two themes were uncovered through conversations with the HCP: 1) Perspectives on CDPS and 2) Healthcare Provider Experiences Communicating about Pain. Moreover, a patient-centredcentred approach is important to ensure comprehensive pain assessments.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".