MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4416411677 · doi:10.2196/82431

Changing the Perceived Pain Intensity in Populations With Spinal Cord Injury and With Health Disparities (HAPPINESS): Protocol for a Feasibility Study

2025· article· en· W4416411677 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ann Van de Winckel, Lin Zhang, Kelvin O. Lim, Leslie R. Morse, Brianna Woodliff, Gladys Elena Maestre, Kelsey Baker

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Complementary and Integrative HealthNational Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
KeywordsSpinal cord injuryProtocol (science)Health equityPopulationIntensity (physics)MEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Chronic neuropathic pain affects 69% of adults with spinal cord injury (SCI). Medication, as a primary treatment, has insufficient benefits and significant risks for addiction and adverse effects. Of the available mind and body approaches, Qigong is the most accessible for adults with SCI, with evidence for effectiveness in reducing pain. Still, there is insufficient evidence to make recommendations for adults with SCI. Thus, the feasibility of Qigong in SCI needs to be established. We previously demonstrated feasibility in a pilot study, in which 18 non-Hispanic White adults with SCI completed a 12-week remote Qigong program. However, three additional key elements need to be addressed before performing a larger effectiveness study: (1) feasibility and acceptability of Qigong in adults with SCI with health disparities, (2) feasibility of a study design with a control group, and (3) objective outcome measures. OBJECTIVE: This National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH) R34 feasibility study-the HAPPINESS (Changing the Perceived Pain Intensity in Populations With Spinal Cord Injury and With Health Disparities) trial-will build upon our prior study to consolidate feasibility with a rigorous protocol. Our aims are (aim 1) to identify facilitators and barriers to participating in a Qigong study through community event meetings, focus groups, and interviews with 40 stakeholders, of whom at least 50% (n=20) have health disparities, and (aim 2) to establish the feasibility of study design and methods through prespecified targets for recruitment and enrollment, feasibility, and acceptability of design and outcomes. METHODS: For aim 1, a total of 40 SCI stakeholders-adults with SCI, caregivers, health care professionals, or other stakeholders who have experience with caring for adults with SCI-will be invited to attend community event meetings, one focus group, or an interview, where they will provide input on facilitators and barriers related to participating in a Qigong study. For aim 2, using a phase I randomized controlled trial design, 40 adults with SCI-related neuropathic pain (with at least 50% [n=20] having health disparities) will be randomized to a 12-week remotely delivered Qigong intervention (practicing at least 3×/week with the Spring Forest Qigong's "Five Element Qigong Healing Movements" video), or a short daily pain management survey, completed on a smartphone, iPad, or computer + 6-month follow-up. Feasibility benchmarks, as well as patient-reported outcome measures and objective data from the Fitbit Charge 6 watch, will be collected during the study. RESULTS: The first participant was recruited on August 20, 2024. Study completion is estimated on January 31, 2027. CONCLUSIONS: The study results will facilitate a rigorous structure to design large effectiveness studies and facilitate a clear pathway for researchers to investigate Qigong and other mind and body approaches for whole-person health in adults with chronic or neurological disorders, including those with health disparities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06140355; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06140355. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/82431.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.086
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.060
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.453

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0860.060
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.005
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0070.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0090.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0570.013

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.

Opus teacher head0.458
GPT teacher head0.639
Teacher spread0.181 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research Protocols→Same topicSpinal Cord Injury Research→French-language works237,207→