Gendered Worlds of Pain: Women, Marginalization, and Chronic Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The importance of gender is undertheorized in chronic pain research, meaning extant research cannot sufficiently shed light on how chronic pain experience and treatment are connected to institutions and societal structures. Much literature on gender and pain is not critical in orientation, making it difficult to translate data into recommendations for improved treatment and care. Our study takes a critical approach informed by social theory to understand chronic pain among women who experience socioeconomic marginalization. Drawing on a gender-based subanalysis of interview data collected in Canada as part of an institutional ethnography of chronic pain among people who are socioeconomically marginalized, from women's narratives, we identified 4 themes that speak to gender, chronic pain, and marginalization. These are 1) gendered minimization of women's health concerns, 2) managing intergenerational poverty, 3) living with violence and trauma, and 4) gendered organization of family care. Together, these themes highlight how women's experiences of chronic pain and marginalization amplify gendered vulnerabilities in health care, social services, and society in general. Our findings depict a deeply gendered experience of chronic pain that is inseparable from the daily struggle of managing one's life with pain with heavy responsibilities, the baggage of past trauma, and responsibility for others with few resources. We emphasize the importance of chronic pain care and health and social services that are both gender- and trauma-informed. PERSPECTIVE: This article draws on an institutional ethnography (a holistic qualitative methodology) of chronic pain and socioeconomic marginalization to demonstrate the importance of chronic pain care and health and social services that are both gender- and trauma-informed.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".