Understanding Experiences of Headache-Sufferers Attending Emergency Departments Through Photovoice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to explore the experiences of individuals receiving emergency department (ED) care for acute headaches. BACKGROUND: Patients with headache exacerbations commonly present to EDs. This study explored the experiences of adult patients during the exacerbation period, specifically using photovoice. METHODS: Recruited from two urban EDs in Alberta, Canada, participants with primary headaches took photographs over 3-4 weeks and subsequently completed a 60-90 minute, one-on-one, in-person photo-elicitation interview. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed and thematically analyzed alongside photographs. RESULTS: Eight participants (six women) completed the study. The average age was 42 years (standard deviation: 16). Five themes emerged: (1) the struggle for legitimacy in light of the invisibility of their condition; (2) the importance of hope, hopelessness and fear in the day-to-day life of participants; (3) the importance of agency and becoming "your own advocate"; (4) the struggle to be and be seen as themselves despite the encroachment of their headaches; and (5) the realities of "good" and "bad" care in the ED. Participants highlighted examples of good care, specifically when they felt seen and believed. Additionally, some expressed the acute care space itself being a beacon of hope in the midst of their crisis. Others felt dismissed because providers "know it's not life or death." CONCLUSIONS: This study highlighted the substantial emotional impact that primary headaches have on the lives of participants, particularly during times of exacerbation and while seeking acute care. This provides insight for acute care settings and practitioners on how to effectively engage with this population.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".