Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34313738›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2021

Evaluation of a Chronic Pain Screening Program Implemented in Primary Care.

Lauren Bifulco, Daren R Anderson, Mary L Blankson, Veena Channamsetty, Jacquelyn W Blaz, Tam T Nguyen-Louie, Sarah Hudson Scholle

Open access · goldAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Temporal pathways between alexithymia, psychological distress, and pain: An autoregressive mediation analysis.Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Integrative Treatment Strategies for Chronic Back Pain: A Literature Review with Clinical Recommendations.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Lauren BifulcoCommunity Health Center Inc, Middletown, Connecticut.
Daren R AndersonCommunity Health Center Inc, Middletown, Connecticut.
Mary L BlanksonCommunity Health Center Inc, Middletown, Connecticut.
Veena ChannamsettyCommunity Health Center Inc, Middletown, Connecticut.
Jacquelyn W BlazInstitute for Research and Education to Advance Community Health, Washington State University, Seattle.
Tam T Nguyen-LouieAligned Psychotherapy, Columbia, Maryland.
Sarah Hudson ScholleNational Committee for Quality Assurance, Washington, DC.
Community Health Center · USNational Committee for Quality Assurance · USWashington State University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Although pain is among the most common symptoms reported by patients, primary care practitioners (PCPs) face substantial challenges identifying and assessing pain. Objective: To evaluate a 2-step process for chronic pain screening and follow-up in primary care. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cross-sectional study of patients with a primary care visit between July 2, 2018, and June 1, 2019, was conducted at a statewide, multisite federally qualified health center. Participants included 68 PCPs and 58 medical assistants from 13 sites who implemented the screening process in primary care, and 38 866 patients aged 18 years or older with a primary care visit during that time. Exposures: Single-question assessment of pain frequency, followed by a 3-question PEG (pain, enjoyment of life, general activity) functional assessment for patients with chronic pain. Main Outcomes and Measures: Adherence to a 2-step chronic pain screening and PEG process, proportion of patients with positive screening results, mean PEG pain severity greater than or equal to 7, and documented chronic painful condition diagnosis in patient's electronic health record between 1 year before and 90 days after screening. Results: Of 38 866 patients with a primary care visit, 31 600 patients (81.3%) underwent screening. Mean (SD) age was 46.2 (15.4) years, and most were aged 35 to 54 years (12 987 [41.1%]), female (18 436 [58.3%]), Hispanic (14 809 [46.9%]), and English-speaking (22 519 [71.3%]), and had Medicaid insurance (18 442 [58.4%]). A total of 10 262 participants (32.5%) screened positive and, of these, 9701 (94.5%) completed the PEG questionnaire. PEG responses indicated severe pain interference with activities of daily living (PEG ≥7) in 5735 (59.1%) participants. A chronic painful condition had not been diagnosed in 4257 (43.9%) patients in the year before screening. A new chronic painful condition was diagnosed at screening or within 90 days in 2250 (52.9%) patients. Care teams found the workflow acceptable, but cited lengthy administration time, challenges with comprehension of the PEG questions, and limited comprehensiveness as implementation barriers. Conclusions and Relevance: A systematic, 2-step process for chronic pain screening and functional assessment in primary care appeared to identify patients with previously undocumented chronic pain and was feasible to implement. Patient-provided information on the frequency of pain, pain level, and pain interference can help improve the assessment and monitoring of pain in primary care.

Indexed as

Disability EvaluationAdultChronic PainCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHealth Plan ImplementationHumansMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedPain MeasurementPrimary Health CareUnited States

Identifiers

PMID34313738
PMCPMC8317006
OpenAlexW3185029560

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.