ArticleBritish journal of pain2016
Independent validation of the Pain Management Plan in a multi-disciplinary pain team setting.
Article in British journal of pain, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
CONTEXT/
backgroundThe Pain Management Plan (PP) is a brief cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) self-management programme for people living with persistent pain that can be individually facilitated or provided in a group setting. Evidence of PP efficacy has been reported previously by the pain centres involved in its development.
objectivesTo provide a fully independent evaluation of the PP and compare these with the findings reported by Cole et al.
methodsThe PP programme was delivered by the County Durham Pain Team (Co. Durham PT) as outlined in training sessions led by Cole et al. Pre- and post-quantitative/patient experience measures were repeated with reliable and clinical significant change determined and compared to the original evaluation.
resultsOf the 69 participants who completed the programme, 33% achieved reliable change and 20% clinical significant change using the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (PSEQ). Across the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) interference domains between 11% and 22% of participants achieved clinical significant change. There were high levels of positive patient feedback with 25% of participants scoring 100% satisfaction. The mean participant satisfaction across the population was 88%.
conclusionThe results from this evaluation validate those reported by Cole et al. It demonstrates clinically significant improvement in pain and health functioning and high patient appreciation results. Both evaluations emphasise the potential of this programme as an early intervention delivered within a stratified care pain pathway. This approach could optimise the use of finite resources and improve wider access to pain management.
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.