The association between physical, sexual, and emotional abuse and physical pain : a comparison of psychiatric patients in Ontario, Canada and Burlington, Vermont
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this quantitative study was to investigate the relationship between inpatient psychiatric patients' histories of physical, sexual, and emotional abuse (Abuse) and their current experience of physical pain. This study explored this association between Abuse and physical pain in adult inpatient psychiatric patients in two locations—Burlington, Vermont and Ontario, Canada. It was hypothesized that rates of Abuse between the two locations would not differ significantly, but that patients with a history of Abuse would score higher on a pain scale (report more severe pain) than those without an Abuse history. Through secondary data analyses using previously collected data the relationships between Abuse and physical pain were considered. Data was collected using the International Resident Assessment Instrument-Mental Health (interRIA-MH). Results demonstrated a significant difference in the rates of Abuse between the two locations, however, results overwhelmingly confirmed the hypothesis that patients with history of Abuse reported more types of pain as well as more severe pain than their counterparts without a history of Abuse. These findings are generally in agreement with previous studies and support the use of a biopsychosocial model of assessment and treatment.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".