ArticleFrontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland)2024
Moving pain management programmes into the digital age: development and evaluation of an online PMP for people with chronic pain.
Article in Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: In response to Coronovirus Disease (COVID-19) health care restrictions, the pain management programme delivered group treatment digitally (OPMP). We aimed to: 1) evaluate pain related outcomes of the OPMP, 2) evaluate patient satisfaction and qualitive feedback of the OPMP and 3) compare OPMP outcomes with the pre-pandemic face to face (F2F) PMP outcomes. Methods: Age, gender, pain duration, occupational status, referral information and patient satisfaction data were collected. Pre- and post-treatment pain related outcomes were compared by calculating mean difference, benchmarking with effect size (Cohen's Results: Two-hundred and thirty-seven patients provided outcome data, with 60 completing the OPMP and 177 completing the F2F PMP. OPMP patients were 10 years younger than the F2F PMP (44.8 vs 53.3), more were female (6.5:1 vs 2.8:1), more were working (45% vs 27%) and fewer were retired (3% vs 17%). The OPMP showed improvements comparable to the F2F PMP. Large effect size was reported across all outcome domains including objective physical outcomes. Eighty-one percent of OPMP patients were 'extremely likely' to recommend the programme but just over 50% of patients felt F2F would provide greater clinical benefits. Conclusion: The results support that OPMP is effective for carefully selected patients following a multidisciplinary team assessment however more complex cases still require F2F PMP.
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.