Impact de l’utilisation d’une fiche conseil dans la prise en charge de la lombalgie commune aiguë chez les patients détenus : une étude prospective quantitative menée à l’Unité Sanitaire en Milieu Pénitentiaire (USMP) du centre pénitentiaire Bordeaux-Gradignan (étude LC-USMP)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: low back pain is one of the most frequently observed musculoskeletal disorders in prison settings. In this context, overcrowding and barriers to healthcare access contribute to symptom chronicity. While the effectiveness of patient information leaflets in managing common conditions has been demonstrated in the general population, their usefulness in correctional facilities has not yet been assessed. Objective: to evaluate the impact of distributing a patient information leaflet on acute nonspecific low back pain among inmates of the Bordeaux-Gradignan Prison Center. Method: a prospective, randomized, controlled, single-center trial was conducted over three months, from June 15 to September 15, 2024. Participants were assigned to two groups: an intervention group receiving the leaflet at inclusion and a control group without leaflet distribution. The calculated sample size required 45 participants per group, but this target was not reached at the end of recruitment, with a total of nine inclusions, seven of whom were in the intervention group. Primary outcome: change in the Quebec Pain Disability Scale score between inclusion (D0) and day fifteen (D15). Results: statistical analyses using Welch’s, Mann–Whitney, and Fisher’s tests showed no significant difference between groups (p = 0.14). Conclusion: this trial did not demonstrate any effect of the patient information leaflet on functional limitation related to acute low back pain. However, it highlights the feasibility of such a protocol in a prison setting and underscores the need for a larger-scale study to confirm these preliminary findings.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".