Experiences of Immigrant Women Living with Chronic Pain and their Caregivers: An Intersectional Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic pain is one of the most common health conditions, affecting nearly six million Canadian adults. Despite abundant research on chronic pain in general, there is limited knowledge on how racialized immigrant women experience living with chronic pain and how this relates to their broader social circumstances. The purpose of this qualitative, exploratory study is to understand living with chronic disabling pain as situated in and contextualized by the lived experiences of immigrant women residing in Ottawa, Ontario, and to explore the perspectives of the women's care partners as well as physicians providing care for chronic pain. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 24 participants. The dissertation is guided by the social determinants of health framework and an intersectional lens. Four interconnected themes from the data analysis have been generated: (1) The trajectory and meaning of pain; (2) Reasons for pain and triggering factors; (3) Pain consequences; and (4) Coping and control. Findings indicate that chronic pain is a subjective, complex, biopsychosocial, and multidimensional phenomenon. Pain is a deeply personal experience linked with meaning. Results also highlight an association between the distribution of the social determinants of health during the life course and pain. Furthermore, the pain has profound, multidimensional impacts on the women and their families, and its treatment is a challenging task for health care professionals. In addition, the findings show that pain is often poorly recognized, underestimated, and inadequately managed. Finally, the results illustrate the perseverance and incredible resilience of the women and their carers. The findings provide several implications for policy, research, and practice.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".