Underserved older adults’ treatment preferences for a mind-body activity program for chronic pain delivered via shared medical visits in a community clinic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Older adults with chronic pain from underserved communities need evidence-based pain management programs. To meet this need, we interviewed patients and staff from an underserved community clinic to identify their treatment preferences and barriers and facilitators to participating in a mind-body activity program. We conducted nine qualitative interviews (two staff; seven patients) and six focus groups (three staff groups; three patient groups), transcribed them verbatim and then used inductive-deductive thematic analysis guided by two pre-specified superordinate domains: (1) treatment preferences and (2) barriers and facilitators to participation. Participants recommended flexible, group participation options (in person, remote) with a credible leader and with multi-cultural considerations. They generally reacted positively to the proposed content. Barriers included logistical barriers (e.g. transportation, finances), weather, and skepticism about novel treatments; facilitators centered on expanding access and increasing sense of community. Our findings highlight important considerations to facilitate the uptake of mind-body activity programs for underserved older adults with chronic pain.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".