Implementation-effectiveness of the power over pain portal for patients awaiting a tertiary care consultation for chronic pain: A pilot feasibility study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The Power Over Pain (POP) Portal is a digital platform that provides people living with pain (PLWP) flexible access to chronic pain self-management resources. Aims: To (1) determine the feasibility of an adequately-powered multisite trial of the POP Portal in tertiary settings; (2) understand the acceptability and usability of the POP Portal; and (3) explore clinical effectiveness among PLWP awaiting a first visit to a tertiary care pain clinic. Methods: Mixed-methods pilot-feasibility study to inform a future definitive trial. Feasibility was assessed using recruitment and retention rates. Acceptability, usability, and patient outcomes were measured using validated surveys completed at baseline and 3-month follow-up, and semistructured interviews conducted after 3-month follow-up. Results: = .033) after using POP for 3 months. Surveys and interviews indicate PLWP were satisfied with the POP Portal, and it had good usability. Some participants indicated that POP was overwhelming, and certain resources were difficult to access, indicating that modifications could be made to improve ease of use. Conclusions: The POP Portal was deemed acceptable with good usability; however, modification may be made for improvement. A definitive trial can proceed with enhancements to the portal, modification of the protocol, and close monitoring.
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 | 0.027 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".