Acceptability of the power over pain portal among patients awaiting tertiary care consultation: A qualitative study of patients’ perceptions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Chronic pain affects approximately 7.6 million Canadians and access to care remains an issue. The Power Over Pain (POP) Portal offers immediate access to evidence-based resources ranging from low- (e.g. education, self-management), to high- (e.g. individual counseling) intensity. We explored the POP Portal's acceptability, usability, and perceived usefulness among patients newly referred to a tertiary care pain clinic. Methods: We used a descriptive, qualitative approach with a prospective cohort of 60 adult patients recently referred to The Ottawa Hospital Pain Clinic. Patients were offered an orientation session and asked to participate in a seven-week follow-up interview. Data were thematically analyzed in an iterative process, whereby responses were reviewed and coded by two members of the research team. Results: Of the 60 patients referred to the POP Portal by clinic clerks, 45 participated in the orientation session, and 40 completed a four-week follow-up. All 40 patients had used the POP Portal and recommended that we continue to offer the POP Portal to patients awaiting care. We identified overarching themes of acceptability (five subthemes), usability (ten subthemes), accessibility (three subthemes), and patient value of the POP Portal (three subthemes). This includes (1) the POP Portal provides easy access to chronic pain resources; (2) the POP Portal is helpful in developing an understanding of chronic pain; and (3) improvements to the POP Portal are needed to increase usability and foster a user-friendly experience. Conclusions: The POP Portal offers accessible and diverse resources for people living with pain awaiting a tertiary care consultation; however, patients would like to see resources specific to diagnosis. Improvements are suggested to allow greater increase the POP Portal usability.
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 | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".