ArticleJournal of clinical psychology in medical settings2009
Assessment of biopsychosocial risk factors for medical treatment: a collaborative approach.
Article in Journal of clinical psychology in medical settings, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 58 citations in OpenAlex.
- Nonoperative management of olecranon fractures in the working age patient: A case series.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2025Article
- Article
- Appropriate referral and selection of patients with chronic pain for spinal cord stimulation: European consensus recommendations and e-health tool.European journal of pain (London, England) · 2020Article
- Assessment and Determinants of Spinal Pain in the Course of Disc Disorders Treated Surgically.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2016Article
- CORR Insights(®): Clinician and Patient-Reported Outcomes Are Associated With Psychological Factors in Patients With Chronic Shoulder Pain.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2016Article
- Assessment of presurgical psychological screening in patients undergoing spine surgery: use and clinical impact.Journal of spinal disorders & techniques · 2014Article
- Patient selection for spinal cord stimulators: mental health perspective.Current pain and headache reports · 2014Review
- The Psychological Evaluation of Patients with Chronic Pain: a Review of BHI 2 Clinical and Forensic Interpretive Considerations.Psychological injury and law · 2014Review
- Quality of life and mental health comparisons among liver transplant recipients and cirrhotic patients with different self-perceptions of health.Journal of clinical psychology in medical settings · 2013Article
- The role of psychosomatic medicine in global health care.Current psychiatry reports · 2011Review
- What variables are associated with an expressed wish to kill a doctor in community and injured patient samples?Journal of clinical psychology in medical settings · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is a growing body of evidence that psychosocial variables have a significant ability to predict the outcome of medical treatment procedures, especially when the procedure is performed to reduce pain. The study described in this paper serves as an illustration of the valuable role psychologists can play in dealing with the challenges of biopsychosocial assessment of patients who are candidates for medical treatments, especially elective, invasive procedures. Based on a convergent model of risk factors that can potentially influence outcomes from spinal surgery and spinal cord stimulation, exclusionary and cautionary risk factors were identified, and the BHI 2 and BBHI 2 tests were used to assess them. An estimate of the prevalence of these risk factors was calculated using data obtained from 1,254 patient and community subjects gathered from 106 sites in 36 US states. Standardized Cautionary Risk and Exclusionary Risk scores demonstrated a test-retest reliability of .85 to .91. Evidence of validity of these scores was also provided based on subjective and objective criteria, using multiple groups of patients and community subjects. Recommendations are made regarding how biopsychosocial assessments could be used in collaborative settings for presurgical candidates to identify risks that could compromise a patient's ability to benefit from other medical treatments as well. Once identified, appropriate interventions could ameliorate these risks, or lead to the consideration of other treatments that are more likely to be effective. Methods of refining this approach for specific clinical applications are also discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.