ArticleBritish journal of pain2024
Confidence of practitioners to support self-management of pain: A multidisciplinary survey.
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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Management of hidradenitis suppurativa in UK primary care: a cross-sectional survey.BJGP open · 2025Article
- Effectiveness of a self-determination theory-based module to improve interaction styles of physiotherapy students: a quasi-experimental study.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Article
- "Less words, more pictures": creating and sharing data visualizations from a remote health monitoring system with clinicians to improve cancer pain management.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
- The experience of occupational therapists and physiotherapists using a prototype, evidence-informed online knowledge translation resource to learn about patient-defined, personally-meaningful chronic pain rehabilitation.British journal of pain · 2024Article
- Patient-centred approach in pain management: Solutions within reach?British journal of pain · 2024Article
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 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Supported self-management is an important component of management for persistent pain according to current recommendations and guidelines. However, it is unclear whether staff from differing disciplines who may be in early contact with people with established or developing persistent pain are confident to introduce and support self-management for this patient group. Aim: To determine the confidence of staff across professional disciplines to introduce and support self-management. Design and Setting: Cross-sectional online survey. Methods: Charts were constructed to represent information on professional grouping, prior training in self-management and confidence in supporting key components of self-management for persistent pain. Analysis of variance was used to test for differences between groups. Results: Overall, 165 practitioners reported confidence to support self-management below the midpoint of a ten-point scale and 93 above. There were few differences between different professions apart from in explaining pain (f = 6.879 Conclusions: Many front-line staff who might be expected to introduce and deliver self-management support for persistent pain lack the confidence and skills to do so. This is consistent with a known lack of education about pain across disciplinary boundaries in primary and community-based care. In order to meet treatment priorities for persistent pain there is an urgent need to upskill the workforce by providing access to good quality training and resources.
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.