Implementation and Effectiveness of the Power Over Pain Portal for Patients Awaiting a Tertiary Care Consultation for Chronic Pain: Protocol for a Pilot, Prospective, Cohort, Mixed Methods Study (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND Chronic pain (CP) affects approximately 8 million people in Canada. Access to CP care is challenging, and there is no robust monitoring system to support patient care and decision-making. The Power Over Pain (POP) Portal was developed by people living with CP, health care providers, researchers, health system decision-makers, policymakers, and community partners to address these concerns. The POP Portal is a comprehensive web-based platform that provides rapid access to a continuum of free, evidence-informed resources for the self-management of CP, mental health, and substance use health. The POP Portal also offers self-assessment tools that enable users to track their progress and receive personalized recommendations. OBJECTIVE This hybrid implementation-effectiveness type III pilot study aimed to determine the feasibility (ie, recruitment, integration, facilitators and barriers, patient engagement, usability, and acceptability) of the POP Portal’s implementation for people waiting for care at a tertiary pain clinic. METHODS A cohort of 80 adults living with pain was recruited from the waitlist of a tertiary care pain clinic over a 3-month period. Following an orientation on the POP Portal, participants were encouraged to use it according to their needs and preferences. They were also asked to complete questionnaires at baseline (0 months) and the 3-month follow-up. Primary feasibility measures included recruitment and retention rates and portal acceptability using the Acceptability E-scale. We also measured usability using the System Usability Scale, evaluated engagement through portal analytics, and identified facilitators and barriers via semistructured interviews with 12 to 15 study participants. These interviews further assessed the acceptability and usability of the portal for participants. Exploratory measures included pain severity, pain-related interference, self-efficacy, coping strategies, and symptoms of anxiety and depression. RESULTS We will present descriptive data on the cohort’s sex and gender, age, rural or urban status, and ethnic background, as well as the acceptability, usability, and feasibility of the portal. Measures of central tendency will be reported for continuous variables, and frequencies and proportions will be reported for categorical variables. We will also present change in clinical outcomes across time and a synthesis of qualitative and thematic data. CONCLUSIONS We anticipate that most patients awaiting care at a tertiary pain clinic recruited will use the POP Portal and find it to be acceptable for addressing some of their pain and associated health concerns. If the feasibility of recruiting and retaining patients is demonstrated as anticipated, we will be able to move forward with a multisite study to evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of the POP Portal among patients waiting for a tertiary care consultation. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT DERR1-10.2196/64801
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 | 0.050 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 0.006 |
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".