ArticleThe Clinical journal of pain2024
Comparing Pain Outcomes and Treatment Adherence Between In-Person and Virtual Interdisciplinary Pain Rehabilitation Programs at the San Francisco VA Health Care System.
Article in The Clinical 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.
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.
- Opioid Craving in Chronic Pain Management: A Structural Equation Model of Veterans in Pain Rehabilitation.Military medicine · 2026Observational
- Characterization and Evaluation of Department of Veterans Affairs Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities-Accredited Interdisciplinary Pain Rehabilitation Programs: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Program Evaluation.JMIR research protocols · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study compared clinical pain outcomes between patients in a pain treatment program that was conducted in-person, compared with a virtual program.
methodsIn-person (N=127) and virtual (N=101) pain treatment programs were compared based on patient-reported, practitioner-collected, and medical record data. The patients were measured at baseline and post-treatment (week 12 for In-Person and week 8 for Virtual patients). We employed the last observation carried forward (LOCF) to handle missing data.
resultsBoth the In-Person and Virtual groups were similar in regard to all baseline outcomes, except the In-person group having significantly more co-morbidities at baseline, with particularly more cases of mental, behavioral, or neurodevelopmental diseases. Both groups demonstrated significant improvements in the pain-related measurements of pain interference and pain catastrophizing thoughts, but neither group displayed a change in average pain across treatment. Further, both groups improved significantly on emotional well-being scores, but not on physical functioning scores. No significant differences existed between groups on outcomes, except for pain catastrophizing, which was higher in the Virtual group at both time points. The Virtual group had lower rates of dropouts compared with In-Person, while the In-Person group had a larger proportion reach a clinically meaningful change in pain-related outcomes, defined as a >30% improvement. DISCUSSION: While some changes were unique to the In-Person program, overall, patients in the Virtual program achieved similar treatment outcomes, suggesting that it can successfully treat Veterans seeking pain management, with less need for in-person facilities for both patients and clinicians.
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.