ArticleBMJ open2017
Meta-ethnography to understand healthcare professionals' experience of treating adults with chronic non-malignant pain.
Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
29 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- General practitioners' attitudes towards opioids for non-cancer pain: a qualitative systematic review.BMJ open · 2022Pooled it
- Experiences of people taking opioid medication for chronic non-malignant pain: a qualitative evidence synthesis using meta-ethnography.BMJ open · 2020Pooled it
- Adults' experiences of perioperative opioid use: a mixed-methods study.Pain reports · 2026Article
- Rethinking pain: a paradigm shift in primary care for chronic pain via community-based, culturally-responsive GP support.Pain management · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- The experience of surgeons treating unexplained pain after knee arthroplasty : a reflexive thematic analysis.Bone & joint open · 2025Article
- Reconfiguring Pain Interpretation Within a Social Model of Health Using a Simplified Version of Wilber's All Quadrant All Levels Framework: An Integral Vision.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- "Who is this 'I' who speaks?" - what can the Arts teach us about pain?Pain management · 2025Article
- "Do Doctors and Patients Have Different Understandings of Pain?" - A Pilot Study of Different Perspectives and Understandings of Pain in Clinical Pain Research.Journal of pain research · 2025Article
- 'Pain free if I ever will be': lived experience of workers seeking care for pain attributed to musculoskeletal disorders.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2024Article
- Unpacking complexity in addressing the contribution of trauma to women's ill health: a qualitative study of perspectives from general practice.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2024Article
- Management of chronic non-cancer pain by primary care physicians: A qualitative study.PloS one · 2024Article
- Experiences of people with hand osteoarthritis and perceptions of clinicians and carers on quality of life and treatment services: A qualitative synthesis.Hand therapy · 2023Review
- Physiotherapists Using the Biopsychosocial Model for Chronic Pain: Barriers and Facilitators-A Scoping Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Incorporating personal narratives in positive psychology interventions to manage chronic pain.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Pain through the perspective of art and creativity: insights from the Unmasking Pain project.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Portuguese Family Physicians' Perceptions on Pain Management-A Qualitative Study Protocol.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Rethinking pain education from the perspectives of people experiencing pain: a meta-ethnography to inform physiotherapy training.BMJ open · 2022Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesWe aimed to explore healthcare professionals' experience of treating chronic non-malignant pain by conducting a qualitative evidence synthesis. Understanding this experience from the perspective of healthcare professionals will contribute to improvements in the provision of care.
designQualitative evidence synthesis using meta-ethnography. We searched five electronic bibliographic databases from inception to November 2016. We included studies that explore healthcare professionals' experience of treating adults with chronic non-malignant pain. We used the GRADE-CERQual framework to rate confidence in review findings.
resultsWe screened the 954 abstracts and 184 full texts and included 77 published studies reporting the experiences of over 1551 international healthcare professionals including doctors, nurses and other health professionals. We abstracted six themes: (1) a sceptical cultural lens, (2) navigating juxtaposed models of medicine, (3) navigating the geography between patient and clinician, (4) challenge of dual advocacy, (5) personal costs and (6) the craft of pain management. We rated confidence in review findings as moderate to high.
conclusionsThis is the first qualitative evidence synthesis of healthcare professionals' experiences of treating people with chronic non-malignant pain. We have presented a model that we developed to help healthcare professionals to understand, think about and modify their experiences of treating patients with chronic pain. Our findings highlight scepticism about chronic pain that might explain why patients feel they are not believed. Findings also indicate a dualism in the biopsychosocial model and the complexity of navigating therapeutic relationships. Our model may be transferable to other patient groups or situations.
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.