Assessing Patient‐Centred Care for Chronic Pain: Validation of a New Research Paradigm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic pain is a complex phenomenon resulting from biological, psychological and social factors, and the use of patient-centred care (PCC) appears to be a promising avenue for its treatment. Various methods have been used for measuring PCC in nurses and physicians (caregivers); however, methodological problems have been raised following the observation of real clinical encounters or standardized patient simulations. The development of new strategies is required. OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate an observation scale for the assessment of PCC in caregivers, using standardized videos of real patients with chronic pain. METHODS: An expert panel developed five videos and the Sherbrooke Observation Scale of Patient-Centered Care (SOS-PCC), which were tested in a sample of 21 nurses and 21 physicians working with chronic pain patients. The content validity, internal consistency and inter-rater reliability of the SOS-PCC were assessed. RESULTS: The expert panel was satisfied with the content validity of the SOS-PCC. Results revealed good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.88) and inter-rater reliability (intraclass coefficient = 0.93) for this scale. CONCLUSIONS: To the authors' knowledge, the SOS-PCC is the first instrument available in French to assess PCC behaviour of caregivers using videos of real patients with chronic pain. The psychometric qualities of these instruments are good. Future studies will need to assess this instrument with other populations of caregivers.
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 | 0.006 | 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".