ArticlePloS one2018
The Complementary Health Approaches for Pain Survey (CHAPS): Validity testing and characteristics of a rural population with pain.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Association of Chronic Pain and Complementary Health Approach Usage: A Comprehensive Analysis Adjusting for Demographics.Journal of pain research · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesLittle is known about patterns and correlates of Complementary Health Approaches (CHAs) in chronic pain populations, particularly in rural, underserved communities. This article details the development and implementation of a new survey instrument designed to address this gap, the Complementary Health Approaches for Pain Survey (CHAPS).
designFollowing pilot-testing using pre-specified criteria to assess quality and comprehension in our target population, and after feedback regarding face-validity from content experts and stakeholders, the final cross-sectional self-report survey required 10-12 minutes to complete. It contained 69 demographic, lifestyle and health-related factors, and utilized a Transtheoretical Model (TTM) underpinning to assess short- and long-term use of 12 CHAs for pain management. Twenty additional items on pain severity, feelings, clinical outcomes, and activities were assessed using the Short-Form Global Pain Scale (SF-GPS); Internal reliability was assessed using Cronbach's alpha. SETTINGS/LOCATION: Investigators conducted consecutive sampling in four West Virginia pain management and rheumatology practices.
participants301 Appalachian adult patients seeking conventional care for pain management.
resultsResponse rates were high (88% ± 4.1%). High quality and comprehension deemed the CHAPS an appropriate measurement tool in a rural population with pain. Missing data were unrelated to patient characteristics. Participants predominantly experienced chronic pain (93%), had five or more health conditions (56%, Mean = 5.4±3.1), were white (92%), female (57%), and middle-aged (Mean = 55.6 (SD = 13.6) years). Over 40% were disabled (43%) and/or obese (44%, Mean BMI = 33.4±31.5). Additionally, 44% used opioids, 31% used other prescription medications, and 66% used at least one CHA for pain, with 48% using CHAs for greater than 6 months. There was high internal reliability of the SF-GPS (alpha = .93) and satisfactory internal reliability for each of the five TTM stages across (all) twelve CHAs: precontemplation (0.89), contemplation (0.72), preparation (0.75), action (0.70), and maintenance (0.70).
conclusionsThe CHAPS is the first comprehensive measurement tool to assess CHA use specifically for pain management. Ease of administration in a population with pain support further use in population- and clinic-based studies in similar populations.
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.