Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26260345›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2015

Current pain education within undergraduate medical studies across Europe: Advancing the Provision of Pain Education and Learning (APPEAL) study.

Emma V Briggs, Daniele Battelli, David Gordon, Andreas Kopf, Sofia Ribeiro, Margarita M Puig, Hans G Kress

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 54 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

54 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. The Treatment of Pediatric Pain in Spain: A Survey Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Raising Awareness on the Clinical and Social Relevance of Adequate Chronic Pain Care.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Emma V BriggsFlorence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing and Midwifery, King's College London, London, UK.
Daniele BattelliDepartment of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, University of Modena e Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy.
David GordonFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Andreas KopfDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Charité Medical University, Berlin, Germany.
Sofia RibeiroMedical Resident in Public Health, Estrada de Mem-Martins, Algueirão Mem-Martins, Portugal.
Margarita M PuigDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Hospital del Mar, Paseo Marítimo, Barcelona, Spain.
Hans G KressDepartment of Special Anaesthesia and Pain Therapy, Medical University/AKH Vienna, Vienna, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesUnrelieved pain is a substantial public health concern necessitating improvements in medical education. The Advancing the Provision of Pain Education and Learning (APPEAL) study aimed to determine current levels and methods of undergraduate pain medicine education in Europe. DESIGN AND

methodsUsing a cross-sectional design, publicly available curriculum information was sought from all medical schools in 15 representative European countries in 2012-2013. Descriptive analyses were performed on: the provision of pain teaching in dedicated pain modules, other modules or within the broader curriculum; whether pain teaching was compulsory or elective; the number of hours/credits spent teaching pain; pain topics; and teaching and assessment methods.

resultsCurriculum elements were publicly available from 242 of 249 identified schools (97%). In 55% (133/242) of schools, pain was taught only within compulsory non-pain-specific modules. The next most common approaches were for pain teaching to be provided wholly or in part via a dedicated pain module (74/242; 31%) or via a vertical or integrated approach to teaching through the broader curriculum, rather than within any specific module (17/242; 7%). The curricula of 17/242 schools (7%) showed no evidence of any pain teaching. Dedicated pain modules were most common in France (27/31 schools; 87%). Excluding France, only 22% (47/211 schools) provided a dedicated pain module and in only 9% (18/211) was this compulsory. Overall, the median number of hours spent teaching pain was 12.0 (range 4-56.0 h; IQR: 12.0) for compulsory dedicated pain modules and 9.0 (range 1.0-60.0 h; IQR: 10.5) for other compulsory (non-pain specific) modules. Pain medicine was principally taught in classrooms and assessed by conventional examinations. There was substantial international variation throughout.

conclusionsDocumented pain teaching in many European medical schools falls far short of what might be expected given the prevalence and public health burden of pain.

Indexed as

CurriculumEducation, Medical, UndergraduatePainSchools, MedicalCross-Sectional StudiesEuropeFranceHumansPublic HealthMEDICAL EDUCATION & TRAININGPainPAIN MANAGEMENTUndergraduate education

Identifiers

PMID26260345
PMCPMC4538268

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.