ArticleBritish journal of pain2019
The context of litigation in evaluating physical and psychological outcomes from pain management programmes.
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. 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.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThere has been extensive research in evaluating chronic pain in the context of litigation while considering the implications that it can have on healthcare outcomes and rehabilitation progress. The aim of this article is to present retrospective observational data about the levels of disability and distress reported by patients with ongoing litigation at the start and following a UK-based multi-disciplinary pain management programme (PMP) when compared with those without litigation.
methodBetween June 2014 and September 2017, 859 patients attended and completed a 16-day PMP at a tertiary-level National Health Service (UK) pain clinic. Patients were split into two groups: (1) litigation (n = 110) and (2) non-litigation (n = 749). As a part of the assessment procedure, the patients were given a battery of psychological and physical measures to complete over two time points.
resultsPatients with litigation are statistically significantly more distressed at assessment but make comparable clinically meaningful change in PMP intervention when compared with a non-litigation sample. A very small proportion of the variance in depression scores post-treatment is accounted for by the context of litigation (0.5%), which may be accounted for by employment status. There was no effect of litigation on physical outcome post-intervention. DISCUSSION: This article concludes that it is not appropriate to merely assume that the context of litigation results in limited positive psychological and physical outcomes post-PMP. There are some limitations to the clinical sample presented in respect to the conclusions.
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.