Fractured system, fractured care: The experiences of Canadian women with chronic pelvic pain waiting for interprofessional pain care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background:Chronic pelvic pain (CPP) is a common disorder in women that includes complex interactions between biological, psychological, and social factors. Accessibility to interprofessional, biopsychosocial CPP care remains a challenge for many patients. There is a lack of knowledge regarding the experiences of women using health services for CPP care and the impact of waiting for interprofessional CPP care. This study explores the perceptions and experiences of Canadian women with CPP interacting with the health system while waiting for interprofessional CPP care.Methods:Our qualitative study included women with CPP waiting for interprofessional care in Ontario, Canada. Data were obtained through semi-structured interviews which were transcribed verbatim and analyzed inductively using established methods for thematic analysis.Results:Ten women (median age of 38.5 years, age range 28–57) participated in in-depth semi-structured interviews. Three main themes were identified: (1) feeling adrift in the health system, (2) feeling “On hold,” uncertain, and in need of guidance, and (3) feeling reliant on a system that does not understand. Within these themes, women with CPP describe tangible strategies and recommendations for improving health system navigation and care.Conclusion:Our study highlights the need for improved access to interprofessional CPP programs, enhanced and targeted training for health professionals in CPP management, and better health system navigation support. Specific recommendations were provided from the perspectives of women with CPP and included providing information on what to expect and prepare for their appointment and engaging patients in education resources while they wait.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".