ReviewPsychological injury and law2014
The Psychological Evaluation of Patients with Chronic Pain: a Review of BHI 2 Clinical and Forensic Interpretive Considerations.
Review in Psychological injury and law, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and Evaluation of a GPT4-Based Orofacial Pain Clinical Decision Support System.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Influence of the Cognitive and Emotional Status of Patients with Chronic Pain on Treatment Success (Reduction in Pain Intensity and Adherence to Pharmacotherapy): A Prospective Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Frequency of and Various Factors Associated with Stress, Anxiety, and Depression among Low Back Pain Patients.Cureus · 2019Article
- Defining the Role of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy in Treating Chronic Low Back Pain: An Overview.Global spine journal · 2015Article
- The Psychological Evaluation of Patients with Chronic Pain: a Review of BHI 2 Clinical and Forensic Interpretive Considerations.Psychological injury and law · 2014Review
- A comprehensive treatment algorithm for chronic pelvic pain patients: A perspective review and future guidelines.Women's health (London, England)Review
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
Pain is the most common reason why patients see a physician. Within the USA, it has been estimated that at least 116 million US adults suffer from chronic pain, with an estimated annual national economic cost of $560-635 billion. While pain is in part a sensory process, like sight, touch, or smell, pain is also in part an emotional experience, like depression, anxiety, or anger. Thus, chronic pain is arguably the quintessential biopsychosocial condition. Due to the overwhelming evidence of the biopsychosocial nature of pain and the value of psychological assessments, the majority of chronic pain guidelines recommend a psychological evaluation as an integral part of the diagnostic workup. One biopsychosocial inventory designed for the assessment of patients with chronic pain is the Battery for Health Improvement 2 (BHI 2). The BHI 2 is a standardized psychometric measure, with three validity measures, 16 clinical scales, and a multidimensional assessment of pain. This article will review how the BHI 2 was developed, BHI 2 concepts, validation research, and an overview of the description and interpretation of its scales. Like all measures, the BHI 2 has strengths and weaknesses of which the forensic psychologist should be aware, and particular purposes for which it is best suited. Guided by that knowledge, the BHI 2 can play a useful role in the forensic psychologist's toolbox.
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.