Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36032342›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of pain2022

Teaching pain management to health professional students: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Simon Ashton, Matthew Kilby, Joey Wu, Kristin Lo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of pain, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

4 authors.

Simon AshtonDepartment of Physiotherapy, Monash University, Frankston, Australia.
Matthew KilbyDepartment of Physiotherapy, Monash University, Frankston, Australia.
Joey WuDepartment of Physiotherapy, Monash University, Frankston, Australia.
Kristin LoDepartment of Physiotherapy, Monash University, Frankston, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3360-2062

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Satisfactory pain management can have a significant impact on clients' activities of daily living. We questioned what types of pain management education might improve health professional students' knowledge, skills and perceptions? Method: From inception until 30 Results: Fourteen articles were included in this review. For continuous data, meta-analysis demonstrated a clear effect favouring the intervention for knowledge SMD 1.47 [95% CI 1.18, 1.77], skills 0.93 [0.58, 1.28] or perceptions 0.69 [0.31, 1.08]. For dichotomous data, results showed no effect for knowledge 4.21 [0.65, 27.41], skills 2.26 [0.47, 11.01] or perceptions 1.96 [0.66, 5.76]. However, the overall result showed an effect 2.82 [1.20, 6.59] favouring the intervention. Conclusions: In summary, short theoretical interventions are sufficient to change students' knowledge and perceptions. Longer interventions incorporating interactivity improve skills. Further research is required to indicate the best method, outcome measure, length of intervention and follow-up in delivering these pain courses and assessing the cost and long-term retention of information.

Indexed as

clinical educationhealth professional studentpain education

Identifiers

PMID36032342
PMCPMC9411754

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.