Incarcerated Men: Pain Experiences Shaped by Altered Independence and Loss of Autonomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Individuals experiencing pain while incarcerated depend on nurses, security structures, processes, and regulations for relief. PURPOSE: The intent of this research was to understand men's experience of pain during incarceration to inform correctional nursing practice. METHOD: Interpretive description, co-positioned with relational ethics, guided this study. Twelve incarcerated men participated in a single 1-hour interview that was audio-recorded and transcribed. The resultant text was analyzed for themes. FINDINGS: The two main themes were dependence on staff and institutional processes and dependence on oneself and others who were incarcerated. Participants reported a substantial loss in their ability to access pain-relieving medications, products, and services. Unresponsive or delayed pain-relieving interventions from nurses contributed to their sense of indignity, disrespect, and injustice. The participants employed whatever was available, mainly exercise equipment and social support, to manage their pain. DISCUSSION: Nurses must engage with incarcerated patients meaningfully to understand and respond to contextual factors that influence their pain experiences. Participants identified loss of autonomy and dependence on nurses as barriers to their pain relief. CONCLUSION: Nurse engagement and responsiveness are crucial to altering incarcerated men's perceptions of injustice or helplessness while improving their pain experiences. Nurses must also foster autonomous pain-management approaches that men can use without limitations within correctional settings.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".