ArticleBritish journal of pain2019
Assessment and patient selection process for a pain management programme: a case study in specialty care.
Article in British journal of pain, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient and health service factors associated with enrollment in a multidisciplinary pain rehabilitation program: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Do baseline patient reported outcome measures predict changes in self-reported function, following a chronic pain rehabilitation programme?British journal of pain · 2023Article
- An updated audit of the patient selection process for pain management programmes in a speciality care service before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.British journal of pain · 2023Article
- How has the COVID-19 pandemic affected patients' experience of pain management therapy?British journal of pain · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe present study audited the process of assessing and selecting patients for a pain management programme with the aim of reviewing best practice in the light of the latest British Pain Society guidelines for pain management programmes for adults. The guidelines include defined inclusion/exclusion criteria and it was explored how they are used by clinicians providing a pain management service.
methodThe records of 200 consecutive patients who attended a multidisciplinary assessment for a central London specialist Pain Management Service from September 2014 to December 2014 were audited. The proportions of patients who were offered a programme, were discharged or referred for a different service were calculated. Clinic letters were reviewed to collect information on assessment outcomes, recommendations and inclusion/exclusion criteria used.
resultsAbout half the patients (53%) seen for assessment were offered treatment within the service, most frequently the intensive residential programme (30.5%, with an additional 11.6% offered case management first), followed by the five session outpatient programme (8.1%) and a minority was offered individual treatment (2.5%); 44.7% of the patients were discharged following the assessment. The three most frequently used reasons for exclusion were: not ready to engage with the pain management approach (35%), complex psychological or other needs needing to be prioritised (29.5%) and the patient declining a programme (19.3%).
conclusionReviewing the use of inclusion/exclusion criteria revealed some challenges regarding patient selection. For example, a sizable proportion of patients were still seeking pain reduction and were not open to a self-management approach when this was the recommended treatment for them. Complex patients might need other treatment approaches before they can be considered for a programme. Having a range of pain management options of varying intensities available seems helpful in meeting individual patient need.
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.