Les connaissances, attitudes et croyances en lien avec la douleur persistante : une étude descriptive auprès du personnel d’un assureur public
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le manque de connaissances, les fausses croyances et attitudes négatives en lien avec la douleur qui proviennent des intervenants en santé peuvent nuire aux soins ou aux services prodigués aux personnes qui présentent des douleurs. Cependant, à ce jour, aucune étude n’a évalué ces paramètres auprès des employés d’assureurs qui, tout comme les cliniciens, sont en contact avec des personnes qui présentent de la douleur. Évaluer les connaissances, attitudes et croyances envers la douleur persistante des employés d’une compagnie d’assurance. Un questionnaire en ligne a été envoyé aux employés d’un assureur établi au Québec. Le questionnaire a été rempli par 255 participants (taux réponse 46 %). Les résultats montrent que les employés ont des scores plus faibles en lien avec les connaissances spécifiques à la douleur et entretiennent certaines croyances et attitudes défavorables envers les personnes qui présentent de la douleur, susceptibles d’être des cibles de formations. Les lacunes identifiées par le questionnaire vont permettre la création d’une formation spécifique aux employés d’un assureur établi au Québec. e NA. Lack of knowledge, false beliefs, and negative attitudes about pain on the part of health care providers may adversely affect the care or services provided to people with pain. However, to date, no study assessed these parameters among insurance company employees who, like clinicians, are in contact with people with pain. To assess the knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about persistent pain among insurance company employees. An online questionnaire was sent to employees of a Quebec-based insurance company. The questionnaire was completed by 255 participants (response rate 46%). The results showed that employees had lower scores for pain-specific knowledge and held certain unfavorable beliefs and attitudes toward people with pain that could be targeted for education. The gaps identified by the survey will allow the creation of specific training for the employee's insurance company. NA.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".