ArticleBritish journal of pain2021
'I think there is nothing . . . that is really comprehensive': healthcare professionals' views on recommending online resources for pain self-management.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Coping with Pokes: Child, Caregiver, and Clinician Feedback on a Caregiver-Led Educational Resource for Managing Children's Needle Fear.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2026Article
- A Reflexive Thematic Analysis Exploring the Experiences of People Using the Curable App for Chronic Pain.Pain research & management · 2025Article
- Peer Support for Chronic Pain in Online Health Communities: Quantitative Study on the Dynamics of Social Interactions in a Chronic Pain Forum.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Virtual Tools to Enable Management of Knee Osteoarthritis.Current treatment options in rheumatology · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo explore healthcare professionals' views on, and attitudes, towards recommending online resources for persistent pain self-management.
methodsThis study was the qualitative phase of a two-phase mixed method study. Thirty-one New Zealand health professionals involved in the management of persistent pain were interviewed via focus groups and individual interviews. Data were analysed using the general inductive approach.
resultsThe major themes were as follows: (1) risks and limits of online information outweigh benefits, (2) a blended model, of online resources with healthcare professional support, could work, (3) only trustworthy resources can be recommended, (4) need for personalisation and (5) perceived barriers to adoption.
conclusionOnline resources were perceived as a useful adjunct to support pain self-management; however, due to potential risks of misinterpretation and misinformation, healthcare professionals proposed a 'blended model' where curated online resources introduced during face-to-face consultations could be used to support self-management. Participants needed 'trustworthy online resources' that provide evidence-based, updated information that is personalised to clients' health literacy and cultural beliefs. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Training for healthcare professionals on critical appraisal of online resources or curation of evidence-based online resources could increase recommendation of online resources to support pain self-management as an adjunct to in-person care.
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.