MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396655893 · doi:10.5812/aapm-144263

Pain Management and Sociology Implications: The Sociomedical Problem of Pain Clinic Staff Harassment Caused by Chronic Pain Patients

2024· article· en· W4396655893 on OpenAlexaff
Olumuyiwa A. Bamgbade, Monisola Temidayo Sonaike, Leili Adineh-Mehr, Daniel O. Bamgbade, Zaina Aloul, Cherith Boatametse Thanke, Thakgalo Thibela, Grace G. Gitonga, Genet T. Yimam, Aria G. Mwizero, Fidelia Batombari Alawa, Lahja Omagano Kamati, Nolubabalo Patience Ralasi, Mwewa Chansa

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesiology and Pain Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorkplace Violence and Bullying
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHarassmentPain managementChronic painPhysical therapyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Patients with chronic pain often experience psychological issues. They may also exhibit harassing behaviors toward healthcare staff. This complex sociomedical issue necessitates increased attention. Objectives: This study analyzed incidents of staff harassment caused by chronic pain patients. It examined the characteristics of chronic pain patients who harassed clinic staff, as well as the causative or associated factors. The study also explored the management and outcomes of these harassment incidents. Methods: This prospective observational study involved 1102 chronic pain patients who received treatment at a pain clinic. Data were prospectively collected on patients' gender, age, ethnicity, occupation, injury insurance claims, and incidents of staff harassment caused by patients. Results: Pain clinic staff were harassed by 121 patients (11%). Among the harassers, females constituted 70.2% and males 29.8%. Additionally, 50.4% of the harassers were unemployed, with unemployed patients causing more staff harassments (P = 0.001). A significant portion, 86 %, of the harassers had injury insurance claims and were associated with a higher incidence of staff harassments (P = 0.002). Patients making disability insurance claims also caused more staff harassments (P = 0.001). Among the harassers, 50.4 % demanded higher drug doses, and 50% did not have regular primary healthcare providers. The types of harassment included insults (34.7%), threats (19.8%), retaliations (3.3%), and sexual harassment (42.2%). All cases of sexual harassment were addressed; the patients involved were counseled. Most harassment incidents were resolved through tactful communication. Of the harassers, 9.9 % were discharged from the clinic. Conclusions: Harassment of pain clinic staff by chronic pain patients is significant. This sociomedical issue may be worsening due to factors such as opioid misuse, racism, the pandemic, and socioeconomic challenges. While most chronic pain patients are reasonable, some can be challenging. This study confirmed that the majority of patients who harassed staff were female, unemployed, had made injury insurance claims, and demanded higher drug doses. Abusive patients should receive anxiolytic therapy, behavioral boundaries, counseling, distraction therapy, and empathy. Pain clinics should implement staff training and support programs to protect staff from harassment. Additionally, pain clinicians should establish peer support networks to mitigate the psychological impacts of patient aggression and maintain professional well-being.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.035
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.603
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0350.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.296 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnesthesiology and Pain MedicineSame topicWorkplace Violence and BullyingFrench-language works237,207