ArticleBMC geriatrics2024
The use of nonpharmacological interventions for chronic pain treatment in community-dwelling older adults with a certified need for care.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 2024. 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.
- A Large Retrospective Observational Study of Nonpharmacologic Treatment Use Among German Patients Receiving Long-Term Opioid Therapy for Chronic Noncancer Pain.Pain research & management · 2026Observational
- Cultural adaptation of the polish version of the brief pain inventory short form among the elderly.Scientific reports · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChronic pain is a major health issue and rapid population ageing exacerbates the burden to health systems in countries like Germany. Nonpharmacological interventions (NPIs) are essential in pain care and the prioritization of active NPIs is emphasized in guidelines. This paper examines the utilization of NPIs for chronic pain management in community-dwelling older adults with a certified need of care in Berlin, Germany.
methodsCross-sectional data was collected through standardized face-to-face surveys with older adults (≥65 years), using validated instruments (e.g., Brief Pain Inventory), and structured lists for NPI utilization. Categorization into active and passive NPIs was performed through a literature-based, iterative process by an interdisciplinary team. For not normally distributed data, non-parametric tests were used as appropriate. Logistic regression was conducted for multivariate analysis.
resultsIn total, 250 participants were included in this analysis (aged 65-104, x̅ = 81.8, 68.8% female). Most (92%) use NPIs for chronic pain management: 85.6% use active NPIs, 50.4% active movement and only 5.6% use solely passive approaches. Most common NPIs are distraction, thermotherapy/compresses, and physiotherapy. The odds of utilizing physiotherapy are three times higher for those with high educational status when compared to those with low education while those with low educational status had higher odds of using thermotherapy/compresses.
conclusionsIn our sample, most community-dwelling older adults with a certified need of care use active NPIs for chronic pain management with about half using active movement approaches. Considering the high vulnerability of this population, physiotherapy (in the form of therapeutic exercise) is a particularly appropriate intervention, and it was the third most frequent NPI in our sample. However, there is a social gradient in the utilization of physiotherapy for chronic pain management which might be rooted in issues around awareness, appeal, and access to such measures. It is important to take socioeconomic differences into account when planning the care for older chronic pain patients but also when designing research or user-friendly guidelines for this target group.
trial registrationEthical approval from the Ethics Committee of Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin (EA1/368/14) and study registration with the Central Study Register (ZSR no. 20009093).
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.