Outcomes and Characteristics of Interdisciplinary Self-Management Interventions for Older Adults Living with Chronic Pain: Insights from a Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Up to 50% of community-dwelling older adults report living with some chronic pain that interferes with their daily functioning and leads to disabilities. Hence, it is crucial to provide these individuals with strategies to effectively manage pain. An interdisciplinary approach is warranted considering the numerous factors contributing to pain among older adults. Although several studies have been conducted on various interdisciplinary pain self-management programs, little effort has been made to synthesize knowledge about such programs for older adults. Objective: The objective of this review was to synthesize the characteristics and effects of interdisciplinary chronic pain self-management interventions targeting community-dwelling older adults. Methods: A scoping review was conducted following the steps recommended by Arksey and O’Malley (2005) and Levac et al. (2010). Keyword searches were performed in MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. Results: Sixty-six articles were included. Most interventions were based on a cognitive-behavioral group approach and used a combination of modalities, including education and training on the use of self-management strategies. The professionals most frequently involved in group interventions were psychologists, physiotherapists, and occupational therapists. Several benefits of these programs have been reported concerning pain intensity, independence in daily functioning, mental health, and quality of life. Conclusions: Interdisciplinary chronic pain self-management programs appear promising in guiding clinical and rehabilitation interventions for older adults living with chronic pain.
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 | 0.015 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".