ArticleBritish journal of pain2021
Sociodemographic predictors of attendance at a Scottish pain management programme.
Article in British journal of pain, 2021. 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.
- Intersectionality as a theoretical framework for researching health inequities in chronic pain.British journal of pain · 2023Article
- Delivering equitable pain care: Lessons from the Scottish Service Model for Chronic Pain.British journal of pain · 2023Article
- How has the COVID-19 pandemic affected patients' experience of pain management therapy?British journal of pain · 2023Article
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
We examined relationships between various sociodemographic factors and attendance at the Glasgow Pain Management Programme (n = 2899 from 2011 to 2019). We tested for associations between gender, age and socioeconomic deprivation of patients who were invited to attend, and uptake to a programme when invited, attendance at screening assessment, eligibility, adherence and attendance at 3- and 6-month reviews. Uptake was significantly higher for patients from more affluent areas (95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.93-0.99, p = 0.002) and for older patients (95% CI = 0.98-0.99, p = 0.006), although effect sizes were very small. Patients were significantly more likely to be assessed as suitable if they were younger (95% CI = 0.98-0.99, p = 0.013) or female (95% CI = 0.55-0.84, p < 0.001). Attendance at sessions and at 3- and 6-month reviews was higher for patients from more affluent areas (95% CI = 1-1.09, p = 0.001, and 95% CI = 1-1.1, p = 0.044 respectively). We argue that there are multiple potential explanations for these findings and that future work should attempt to determine whether these patterns replicate in other populations and to determine any modifiable causes.
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.