2021
DOI: 10.1007/s40122-021-00301-9
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Demographics, Pain Characteristics and Diagnostic Classification Profile of Chronic Non-Cancer Pain Patients Attending a Canadian University-Affiliated Community Pain Clinic

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

2
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Our study sample included more females than males, and this difference was especially pronounced within the pediatric sample. Though this is in line with past research 7 and similar female-to-male ratios have been reported in adults 48 and children, 49 this gender bias may also reflect sex-based disparities in research participation, access to health care, and resource utilization among persons living with chronic pain. To limit the number of survey questions and respondent burden, we only asked the participants about their gender, not biological sex.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 88%
“…Our study sample included more females than males, and this difference was especially pronounced within the pediatric sample. Though this is in line with past research 7 and similar female-to-male ratios have been reported in adults 48 and children, 49 this gender bias may also reflect sex-based disparities in research participation, access to health care, and resource utilization among persons living with chronic pain. To limit the number of survey questions and respondent burden, we only asked the participants about their gender, not biological sex.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 88%
“…The preponderance of females in our study group is striking with a F/M ratio of 4.25/1 as opposed to 1.6/1 in our general population, as per our own recently published study [16]. However, female preponderance is supported by the existing literature in hospitalized patients.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 83%
“…made solely on the basis of lack of detectable biomedical pathology (with current means available), but is based on clinical expert judgement that takes in account all sources of information (history, physical findings, behavioural observations, review of records, and laboratory/medical/surgical reports and findings). The aforementioned diagnostic classification has been explicitly described [12] and extensively used in previous publications from our group [12,[14][15][16][17][18]. A very small number of patients in both age groups in the present study were not given a diagnostic categorization because of lack of final diagnosis (e.g.…”
Section: Data Collectionmentioning
confidence: 99%