ArticleBMC health services research2024
Evaluating a targeted person-centred pain management intervention programme in lumbar spine surgery - a controlled segment-specific before-and-after interventional design.
Article in BMC health services research, 2024. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Adults' experiences of perioperative opioid use: a mixed-methods study.Pain reports · 2026Article
- Application of Pain Management After Lumbar Spine Surgery: A Bibliometric Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Pain research & management · 2026Article
- Institution-Based Quality and Safety Improvement Initiatives in Spine Surgery: A Scoping Review.JBJS reviews · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPostoperative pain management in lumbar spine surgery care remains a challenge. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of a person-centred postoperative pain management intervention programme on lumbar spine surgery patients on postoperative pain, shared decision-making, and satisfaction with postoperative pain management.
methodsThe study was performed with a controlled before-and-after interventional design in an orthopaedic unit at a university hospital. Person-centred pain management for patients undergoing spine surgery was developed in co-creation by a multi-professional team and implemented throughout the care pathway. The usual care group (pre-intervention) served as a comparison to the intervention group. Pain intensity, shared decision-making in pain management, and patient satisfaction with results of pain management, served as patient-reported measures, collected using the International Pain Outcomes questionnaire and analysed using descriptive statistics.
resultsThe intervention showed no benefit for patients' pain and satisfaction, while shared decision-making in pain management was significant lower in the intervention group than in the conventional group. The per-protocol analysis showed no significant differences between groups.
conclusionThe initial assumption of the study, that the implementation of a co-created structured person-centred care pathway would improve patient-reported outcomes, was not confirmed. The periodically low fidelity to the intervention due to organizational constraints (due to sub-optimal organizational conditions and managerial support) may have affected the results.
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.