Incorporating reproductive health into holistic chronic pain management: bridging a critical gap
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Not only is chronic pain more prevalent in women but also the intersection between chronic pain and reproductive health adds complexity in pain management strategies and care plan development. Despite this, it remains unclear whether reproductive health is being discussed in the context of chronic pain care. Objectives: The objective of this brief report was to explore the extent to which reproductive health is being addressed as a component of female chronic pain care and to identify the educational needs of women of childbearing age living with chronic pain. Methods: Women aged 18 to 50 years who attended a tertiary care chronic pain clinic were asked to complete a survey that investigated reproductive knowledge and discussions with a care provider. Results: A total of 51 participants (mean age of 33 ± 7 years) responded. More than 76% of participants had indicated that they had never discussed family planning, fertility, or pregnancy in relation to chronic pain with a health care provider. More than half of participants reported that they only "somewhat" understood the reproductive safety of their medications. Participants were interested in learning about medication and pregnancy, the impact of pain on pregnancy, the impact of pregnancy on chronic pain, and sexual health. Conclusion: The results from this survey raise the need to integrate reproductive health into comprehensive pain management and provide patients with information to make informed decisions around their pain care and reproductive choices.
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 | 0.017 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".