MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406104027 · doi:10.2196/54975

Effectiveness of Outpatient Chronic Pain Management for Middle-Aged Patients by Internet Hospitals: Retrospective Cohort Study

2024· article· en· W4406104027 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ling Sang, Bixin Zheng, Xianzheng Zeng, Huizhen Liu, Maotong Liu, Maoying Wang, Zhengzi Yi, Li Song

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Informatics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersWest China Hospital, Sichuan UniversityNatural Science Foundation of Sichuan ProvinceChengdu Science and Technology BureauSichuan University
KeywordsMedicineRetrospective cohort studyThe InternetChronic painPain managementCohortMedical emergencyEmergency medicinePhysical therapyInternal medicineWorld Wide WebComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Chronic pain is widespread and carries a heavy disease burden, and there is a lack of effective outpatient pain management. As an emerging internet medical platform in China, internet hospitals have been successfully applied for the management of chronic diseases. There are also a certain number of patients with chronic pain that use internet hospitals for pain management. However, no studies have investigated the effectiveness of pain management via internet hospitals. Objective: The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to explore the effectiveness of chronic pain management by internet hospitals and their advantages and disadvantages compared to traditional physical hospital visits. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study. Demographic information such as the patient's sex, age, and number of visits was obtained from the IT center. During the first and last patient visits, information on outcome variables such as the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), medical satisfaction, medical costs, and adverse drug events was obtained through a telephone follow-up. All patients with chronic pain who had 3 or more visits (internet or offline) between September 2021, and February 2023, were included. The patients were divided into an internet hospital group and a physical hospital group, according to whether they had web-based or in-person consultations, respectively. To control for confounding variables, propensity score matching was used to match the two groups. Matching variables included age, sex, diagnosis, and number of clinic visits. Results: A total of 122 people in the internet hospital group and 739 people in the physical hospital group met the inclusion criteria. After propensity score matching, 77 patients in each of the two groups were included in the analysis. There was not a significant difference in the quality of life (QOL; QOL assessment was part of the BPI scale) between the internet hospital group and the physical hospital group (P=.80), but the QOL of both groups of patients improved after pain management (internet hospital group: P<.001; physical hospital group: P=.001). There were no significant differences in the pain relief rate (P=.25) or the incidence of adverse events (P=.60) between the two groups. The total cost (P<.001) and treatment-related cost (P<.001) of the physical hospital group were higher than those of the internet hospital group. In addition, the degree of satisfaction in the internet hospital group was greater than that in the physical hospital group (P=.01). Conclusions: Internet hospitals are an effective way of managing chronic pain. They can improve patients' QOL and satisfaction, reduce treatment costs, and can be used as part of a multimodal strategy for chronic pain self-management.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.315 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical InformaticsSame topicTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationFrench-language works237,207