ArticleJournal of pain research2019
Qualitative evaluation of an interdisciplinary chronic pain intervention: outcomes and barriers and facilitators to ongoing pain management.
Article in Journal of pain research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Engagement in Digital Self-management Interventions for Chronic Pain: A Systematic Review.The Clinical journal of pain · 2025Pooled it
- Longitudinal outcome evaluations of Interdisciplinary Multimodal Pain Treatment programmes for patients with chronic primary musculoskeletal pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of pain (London, England) · 2022Pooled it
- Senior WISE intervention: Gender differences in bodily pain and trait anxiety.Archives of psychiatric nursing · 2021Trial
- What does collaborative healthcare for people with musculoskeletal-related conditions look like? A scoping review.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
- Patients' Experiences with an Interdisciplinary Team Assessment of Chronic Pain: A Qualitative Interview Study.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2025Article
- Integrated Approach to Chronic Pain-The Role of Psychosocial Factors and Multidisciplinary Treatment: A Narrative Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Review
- Benchmark findings from a veteran electronic patient-reported outcomes evaluation from a chronic pain management telehealth program.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Empower Veterans Program (EVP): a chronic pain management program demonstrates positive outcomes among veterans.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- [Effectiveness of an individualized multimodal treatment of chronic pain patients : A retrospective real-life analysis with 3-year follow-up].Schmerz (Berlin, Germany) · 2022Article
- The Importance of Perceived Relevance: A Qualitative Evaluation of Patient's Perceptions of Value and Impact Following a Low-Intensity Group-Based Pain Management Program.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2021Article
- Pain Care in the Department of Veterans Affairs: Understanding How a Cultural Shift in Pain Care Impacts Provider Decisions and Collaboration.Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.) · 2020Article
- 'A lifebuoy' and 'a waste of time': patients' varying experiences of multidisciplinary pain centre treatment- a qualitative study.BMC health services research · 2019Article
- Remotely Delivered Psychologically Informed Mindful Movement Physical Therapy for Pain Care: A Framework for Operationalization.Global advances in integrative medicine and healthArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMany leaders in the field of chronic pain treatment consider interdisciplinary pain management programs to be the most effective treatments available for chronic pain. As programs are instituted and expanded to address demands for nonpharmacological chronic pain interventions, we need to better understand how patients experience program impacts, as well as the challenges and supports patients encounter in trying to maintain and build on intervention gains.
methodsWe conducted a qualitative evaluation of an interdisciplinary chronic pain coaching program at the Atlanta Veterans Affairs. A purposive sample of Veterans were engaged in interviews (n=41) and focus groups (n=20) to elicit patient outcomes and barriers and facilitators to sustainment of improvements. Transcripts were analyzed using matrix and thematic analyses.
resultsVeterans reported various outcomes. Most frequently they described adopting new self-care or lifestyle practices for pain management and health. They also often described accepting pain, being better able to adjust and set boundaries, feeling more in control, participating in life, and changing their medication use. A small portion of the sample reported no improvement in their conditions. When outcomes were examined as a whole, individuals described impacts that could be placed along a spectrum from whole life change to no change. Facilitators to maintenance of improvements included having building blocks (eg, carrying forward practices learned), support (eg, access to resources), and energy (eg, motivation), and improving incrementally. Challenges were not having building blocks (eg, life disruptions), support (eg, unknown follow-up options), and energy (eg, competing demands) and having an unbalanced rate of improvement.
conclusionMost Veterans identified experiencing multiple areas of improvement, especially learning about and taking up new pain and general health management skills. Ensuring participants can build on and find support for these outcomes when applying what they have learned in their dynamic social and physical worlds remains a challenge for this program and other relatively short-term interdisciplinary chronic pain interventions.
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.