ArticlePain reports
Prioritizing a sequence of short-duration groups as the standardized pathway for chronic noncancer pain at an Australian tertiary multidisciplinary pain service: preliminary outcomes.
Article in Pain reports. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo describe implementation and report preliminary outcomes of a resource-efficient, standardized group pathway for chronic noncancer pain.
designDescriptive cross-sectional study of a group-based pain management pathway in comparison with an Australasian benchmarking data set.
settingAn Australian tertiary multidisciplinary pain service. SUBJECTS: Patients with chronic noncancer pain actively participating in the group pathway in 2016.
methodsReferred patients were prioritized to a short-duration group-based standardized pain management pathway linking education, assessment, and treatment groups. Measures of pain, mood, self-efficacy, and catastrophizing and reduction in daily opioid use were collated from the Australasian data set.
resultsIn 2016, 928 patients were actively engaged with the pain service. More patients were prioritized to receive treatment in a group format in comparison with other Australasian services (68.4% vs 22%). A greater percentage of patients attended their first clinical contact within 3 months of referral (81.4%) compared with the Australasian average (68.6%). Comparable improvements in average pain intensity, pain interference, depression, anxiety, stress, pain catastrophizing, and self-efficacy were observed. There was significantly greater reduction in opioid use, including for those taking more than 40 mg of oral morphine equivalent daily dose.
conclusionImplementation of a sequence of short-duration groups as the default clinical pathway resulted in shorter waiting times and noninferior outcomes in key areas for patients completing the program, compared with Australasian averages. Given the resource efficiencies of the group process, this finding has implications for service design.
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.