The Role of the Cardiac Surgery Patient in Pain Management: The Patient Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One and a half million cardiac surgeries are completed worldwide each year where undertreated postoperative pain increases the risk of patient morbidity and mortality. Patient-centered pain management is recommended to improve patient outcomes but there is insufficient information regarding how the patient views their role. The objective of this study is to explore cardiac surgery patients’ perspectives on their role in postoperative pain management. This study used an interpretive phenomenological design and convenience sampling. Six participants who had undergone cardiac surgery were recruited from a cardiac rehabilitation program in Western Canada. The first author conducted semi-structured digitally recorded interviews. Sociodemographic characteristics and measures of anxiety and depression were also collected. Emergent thematic analysis of the qualitative data generated three themes: attitude, coping and care, and communication. The findings of this study address a gap in the literature with regard to patients’ perceived roles in pain management. There is a complex relationship between patient attitude, coping and care, and communication which, in turn, influences how patients view their role within the pain management continuum. These themes contribute to the development of the patient role within the pain management continuum and form an integrated feedback loop. The patient’s attitude contributes to their ability to cope with pain and participate in pain assessment and management. Furthermore, their ability to cope and desire to participate influences the development of their attitude. These findings may enhance providers’ understanding of the patient’s perspective and improve pain management outcomes.
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 | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".