ArticleBMC public health2019
Pain situations among working adults and the educational needs identified: an exploratory survey via WeChat.
Article in BMC public health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- An Online Pain Education Program for Working Adults: Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Trial
- Protocol: Comparative efficacy of 2 mL vs. 5 mL 0.375% ropivacaine in subparaneural upper trunk brachial plexus block for postoperative analgesia after arthroscopic shoulder surgery-a randomized noninferiority trial.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Exploring the Pain Situation, Pain Impact, and Educational Preferences of Pain Among Adults in Mainland China, a Cross-Sectional Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this study is to 1) investigate the pain situation among working adults in China; 2) explore the self-initiate pain reliving strategies applied by working adults; and 3) collect people's interests and suggestions to the topics of the online pain education program.
methodsThis is an exploratory survey through WeChat. The study was conducted from May 2018 to December 2018. Participants were recruited following the snowball sampling. In total of 664 people were recruited and 502 satisfied the criteria. SPSS was used for data analysis. Descriptive statistical analysis were used to present the utilization of pain treatments and suggested topics. Chi-square test, independent multiple logistic regression and Spearman's correlation were used to analysis the data.
resultsThe overall incidence of pain among the participants is 45% and higher among female (63%) than male (37%). Neck (68.72%, 4.10 ± 2.31), shoulder (62.56%, 3.78 ± 2.41) and head (49.34%, 4.23 ± 2.52) are reported as the most common and severe pain sites. Working is affected by pain and the results show that there is a negative correlation between pain intensity and work (rs = - 0.194) among the working population. Non-pharmacological treatments (55.77%) were chosen more by pain suffers. Totally 63.39% of participants show interests in the online pain education program and physical and psychological impact of pain is the most suggested topic (22.51%).
conclusionThe pain prevalence is high among working adults in China. Impact of pain on work is a significant problem for the working adults. It is important to identify people at risk and deliver timely intervention to reduce pain. People showed their willingness in joining the online program. Therefore, future online pain education program can be developed.
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.