ArticleBritish journal of pain2023
Patient experiences of remote care in a pain service during a pandemic.
Article in British journal of pain, 2023. 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.
- Pain Retrained: Participant Perspectives of an Online, Interdisciplinary Chronic Pain Education Programme.European journal of pain (London, England) · 2026Article
- Hybrid in-person and internet-based pain management programs; an opportunity for improved patient experience and outcomes.Pain management · 2026Article
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
Background: In March 2020, Pain Management Services were obliged to cease face-to-face consultations. This abrupt change, in line with recommendations from the British Pain Society, aimed to protect patients and staff and allowed resource re-allocation. Pain services were obliged to switch to remote consultations using Video Tele-Conferencing Technology (VTC) and Remote Consultations (RC) either through telephone or video calls using a variety of media and software applications. Little is known about the patient experience of remotely delivered pain care especially when alternatives are removed. The aim of this work was to understand the patient experience of this necessary switch regarding pain self-management interventions during the initial stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: A mixed-methods evaluation of the patient experience from three pain self-management interventions, taking place in a large community-based pain rehabilitation service along the South Coast of England, was performed. Experience-Based Design (EBD) methods were used to map patient experience at touch points through two interventions that were delivered in a structured format. Semi-structured recorded interviews were transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis for the third. Findings: Fifty-eight patients took part covering the scope of the service. In general, educational and psychological sessions were well received, with physical rehabilitation components being less easy to convey remotely. Attrition rates were high for the pain management programme. Group pain education worked particularly well in an online format with hope being the predominant emotion experienced. Clear limitations were technical failures and the lack of ability to form relationships in a virtual world. Conclusions: Remote digitalised interventions were acceptable to most patients. Attention should be paid to access and improving social aspects of delivery when considering such interventions. Physiotherapy may require more face-to-face necessitating a hybrid model and needs further investigation. EBD proved a highly suitable approach.
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.