Evaluating patient satisfaction and perceived accuracy in questionnaires completed before vs. during a pain clinic visit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Effective assessment is essential for planning treatment in chronic pain management. This study compared patient satisfaction and perceived data accuracy between completing pre-assessment questionnaires at home versus in the clinic prior to a neuromodulation consultation.Methods In this prospective, single-center study, adult patients referred for neuromodulation assessment were randomized to complete intake questionnaires either at home (“Home” group) or upon arrival at the clinic (“Clinic” group). Prior the appointment, all participants completed a satisfaction survey assessing perceived accuracy, time efficiency, and preference.Results Forty-two patients participated (Home: 17; Clinic: 25). Overall satisfaction was not significantly different between groups (88.2% vs. 64%, p = 0.202). However, perceived response accuracy (88.2% vs. 36%, p < 0.001) and time efficiency (82.4% vs. 28%, p = 0.002) were significantly higher in the Home group. More than half of Clinic group participants stated they would have preferred to complete the questionnaires at home (52% vs. 5.9%, p = 0.001).Conclusions Completing pre-assessment questionnaires at home resulted in higher perceived accuracy and time efficiency without compromising satisfaction. These findings support incorporating remote pre-visit assessments into chronic pain clinic workflows to optimize patient experience.Clinical trial registration www.clinicaltrials.gov identifier is NCT03852381.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".