A formal evaluation of The Ottawa Hospital Pain Clinic orientation session: A quality improvement project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic pain affects approximately one in every five Canadians and has a substantial impact on psychological well-being, relationships, ability to attend work or school, and overall functioning.The Ottawa Hospital Pain Clinic introduced orientation sessions, with the aim of providing new patients with pain education to help prepare patients for engagement with multimodal pain management strategies. This report summarizes the results of a formative evaluation of the orientation session at The Ottawa Hospital Pain Clinic to determine whether patients perceived the orientation session as beneficial. Interviews were conducted, transcribed, and then thematically analyzed to understand patients’ perspectives on the orientation session. Coding was done by two team members using the constant comparison analyses method with key ideas, concepts, and patterns identified and compared to identify similarities. Between September 6 and October 18, 2019, 18 patients attended an orientation session and 12 consented to participation and completed telephone interviews. The six themes identified included (1) feeling of community, (2) participants feeling heard by providers, (3) appreciation of the holistic approach, (4) availability of community resources, (5) barriers to access, and (6) discordant feelings of preparedness for the physician appointment. Results from this evaluation indicate that the orientation session offered at The Ottawa Hospital Pain Clinic improves chronic pain literacy, reduces feeling of isolation, and instills hope. As such, it appears to be a valuable component of pain clinic programs.
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 | 0.056 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".