How encounters with health professionals reiterate experiences of coloniality for refugees.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Physical pain is typically perceived as a raw sensory experience by providers and pain scholars. However, for decolonial theorists, the meaning of pain is derived from the context of colonialization and understood as a multidimensional subjective experience with psychological, emotional, cognitive, and sociopolitical features. The purpose of this field study was to acquire first-hand experiential narratives of racialized refugees living with chronic pain. In this article, we undertake a decolonial analysis of the meaning of pain based on the narratives of refugee study participants, including their experiences of encounters with health care practitioners. METHOD: We conducted a community-based qualitative study using focus groups with people living with chronic pain who identified as being socially marginalized in British Columbia, Canada. Thematic analysis of one participant subgroup, those who identified as refugees (N = 14), provided a preliminary decolonial approach to theorizing pain. RESULTS: Analysis centered on the body as an organizing concept, with three themes identified: "body as (un)knowledgeable," "body as (non)culturally clothed," and "body as (ir)responsive." Based on the analysis, we advance a decolonial approach, using the concepts of dispensability, alienation, and agency, to theorize about the psychological impacts of coloniality that act as barriers to equitable health care. This decolonial approach can be used by health practitioners to assess and address pain disparities experienced by racialized refugees. CONCLUSIONS: A decolonial perspective offers the possibility of understanding pain disparities as resulting from practices of coloniality rather than as a biomedical issue detached from sociopolitical realities. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".