ArticleJournal of pain research2020
Feasibility of a Randomized Controlled Trial of Paediatric Interdisciplinary Pain Management Using Home-Based Telehealth.
Article in Journal of pain research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hybrid approaches to allied health services for children and young people: a scoping review.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2024Article
- Attrition from Face-to-Face Pediatric Outpatient Chronic Pain Interventions: A Narrative Review and Theoretical Model.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
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
purposeChronic pain is common in adolescents. Evidence-based guidelines recommend interdisciplinary treatment, but access is limited by geography. The development of hybrid programs utilizing both face-to-face and videoconference treatment may help overcome this. We developed a 7-week hybrid pediatric interdisciplinary pain program (Hybrid-PIPP) and wished to compare it to individual face-to-face sessions (Standard Care). Our objective was to test the feasibility of a protocol that used a matched pair un-blinded randomized controlled design to investigate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of the Hybrid-PIPP compared to Standard Care. PATIENTS AND
methodsParent-adolescent dyads were recruited from tertiary pediatric clinics and matched by disability before randomization to minimize allocation bias. The adolescents (aged 11-17) had experienced primary pain for >3 months. Hybrid-PIPP involved 11 hrs of group therapy and 4 individual videoconference sessions. Standard care was provided by the same clinical team, using the same treatment model and similar intensity as the Hybrid-PIPP. The intention was to recruit participants for 3 Hybrid-PIPP groups with a comparison stream. Recruitment was ceased after 2 groups due to the high participant disability requiring more intensive intervention.
resultsEighteen dyads were screened and 13 randomized (7 Hybrid-PIPP, 6 Standard Care, 2 unsuitable, 3 unallocated when the study was stopped). The study met a priori feasibility criteria for staff availability; recruitment rate; treatment completion; and data collection. Global satisfaction ratings were similar in both streams (SC median 7, range 5-9 and Hybrid-PIPP median 8.5, range 5-10). Challenges were identified in both streams. A future modified Hybrid-PIPP was considered acceptable if the intensity is increased to manage the high level of disability. Standard care was considered inefficient. No adverse events were reported.
conclusionThe study determined that the protocol met a priori feasibility criteria, but to be practicable in a real world, health environment requires significant modifications. REGISTRATION: ANZTR(ACTRN2614000489695).
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.