Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38545497›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of pain2024

'I felt part of the solution'. A qualitative study about the interface between lived experience advocates, professionals and organisations in the field of persistent pain.

Cameron Hartley, Chris Penlington

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of pain, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Cameron HartleyNewcastle University, Newcastle, UK.
Chris PenlingtonNewcastle University, Newcastle, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2695-7041
Newcastle University · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: To elicit perspectives of people with persistent pain about their experiences working with pain management professionals and services as patient advocates and to consider implications for current models of involving patients in service development and research. Design: reflexive thematic analysis from a critical realist perspective. Methods: Online interviews were conducted individually with 10 participants who had acted as patient advocates in the field of persistent pain. Participants were recruited through purposive and snowball sampling. Data were analysed and organised into themes and are presented descriptively. Results: The relationship between patient advocates and the organisations they help is conceptualised as 'an unequal partnership'. Participants described positive and affirming experiences with individual health professionals and research teams (Respect). This often occurred within a context of inflexible organisational policies that presented barriers to participation including a lack of financial compensation and expectation to work to inflexible deadlines. As a result, patient advocates could experience a lack of value attributed to their experiences and voices (unmet needs from institutions). Conclusion: People with personal experience of engaging with services for persistent pain are in a strong position to contribute to service improvement. Although this contribution is recognised as valuable, it appears to be devalued by organisational barriers. Organisational policies around payment may lead to a lack of representation of those experiencing higher levels of disadvantage. As a result, services and policy makers may be missing out on insights that could be important for service development.

Indexed as

Chronic painpatient advocatesqualitative researchthematic analysis

Identifiers

PMID38545497
PMCPMC10964859
OpenAlexW4387734757

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.