“This Is My Future?”: Understanding the Lives of Emerging Adult Women Living with Chronic Pain Through a Narrative Inquiry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic pain disproportionately affects women yet is often underestimated by medical professionals. In Canada, chronic pain rates have risen significantly, particularly among those aged 20 to 29 without other health conditions. However, limited qualitative research focuses on chronic pain exclusively in women under 30. By focusing on gender, this narrative inquiry study examined how societal narratives and stereotypes uniquely affect emerging adult women's experiences of chronic pain, contributing to their dismissal and invisibility in both personal and institutional contexts. Two key narrative threads were co-created with participants through analysis of their stories: silenced, invisible, and locating self with pain, and resisting singular stories of people living with chronic pain. Participants' shared family narratives of dismissal, stories of being silenced in health care, and dominant narratives in the context of age and gender that shaped the participants' stories to live by. This study demonstrates the importance of recognizing people in the midst of living with chronic pain. Understanding unique pain experiences during emerging adulthood can improve treatment options and long-term outcomes for this demographic.
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 | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".