“Discharge doesn’t mean the end”: Exploring success in discharge to community self-management for young adults living with chronic pain: A qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Living with chronic pain as a young adult (YA) can impact the physical, emotional, social, cognitive, and role function domains of life. Once YAs receive care for their specialist chronic pain care they are expected to self-navigate a complex health care system to transition to community-based care (i.e. primary care). Inadequate discharge planning may increase the unique difficulties YAs face in self-management, which may lead to adverse health outcomes, suboptimal discharge, and a need to reaccess care. Aims: The purpose of this qualitative study is to explore how YAs with chronic pain define a successful discharge transition from a health service delivery model of specialized chronic pain services setting to self-management in a community setting (i.e. primary care) and contextual factors that promote discharge success. Methods: This qualitative study included young adults with chronic pain. Data were obtained through semistructured interviews, which were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using inductive content analysis. Results: Ten participants identified that successful discharge includes the following considerations: (1) acknowledging the tension between moving forward and looking back, (2) a collaborative discharge process, and (3) the need for ongoing, relevant resources and support. Conclusion: This study provides a deeper understanding of how YAs with chronic pain characterize success in the discharge transition from specialized chronic pain services to community self-management. Our findings highlight the importance of provider-patient collaboration during the discharge planning process to develop a patient-centered self-management plan that incorporates community resources tailored to the needs of the individual to promote an optimal discharge.
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 | 0.022 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".