MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6906488045 · doi:10.17605/osf.io/x3s52

Trauma- and violence-informed assessment and management of pain: A scoping review protocol

2022· other· en· W6906488045 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Science Framework · 2022
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDistressPsychological traumaIntervention (counseling)Health careAction (physics)Emotional distressAction planEmotional traumaSet (abstract data type)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Trauma has been defined as “a lasting emotional response that often results from living through a distressing event” (CAMH, 2022). The experience of a traumatic even can adversely impact an individual’s sense of safety, sense of self, their ability to regulate their emotions, and navigate relationships. Exposure to trauma is widespread; a survey of 24 countries which included 68,894 respondents found that over 70% reported at least one traumatic event and 30.5% were exposed to four or more traumatic events (Benjet et al., 2016). In Canada the rate of exposure to traumatic events is 75.9% (Van Ameringen et al., 2008). It is increasingly recognized that trauma may set the stage for persistent psychological and physical distress (D’Andrea et al., 2011). Pain and trauma are highly comorbid and is associated with increased experiences of pain, functional impairments, and healthcare utilization (McKernan et al., 2019; Nicol et al., 2016; Sachs-Ericsson et al., 2017). Individuals with a history of traumatic life events may be at risk of re-traumatization as a result of their health care experiences (Coles & Jones, 2009). In recognition of this, Health Canada established the Canadian Pain Task Force (CPTF) to provide advice on best practices for the prevention and management of chronic pain. Their final report, an Action Plan for Pain in Canada (2021), recommended that an equity-oriented and trauma- and violence-informed (T&VI) approach is essential to understand, prevent, and treat pain in populations disproportionately impacted by pain. Trauma- and violence-informed care recognizes the universal impact of trauma, how trauma may present in individuals, and responses in a way that avoids re-traumatization (SAMHSA, 2014). Despite the increased recognition of the need for trauma-informed care, limited research has assessed the principles and practices of trauma- and violence-informed pain assessment and pain management. As such, in order to map the research literature in this area, a scoping review using Arksey and O’Malley’s framework methodology (2005) will be conducted with support from a professional librarian for trauma- and violence-informed approaches to pain assessment and pain management.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.619
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.455
Teacher spread0.403 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Science FrameworkFrench-language works237,207