ArticleBMC geriatrics2024
Development of a set of indicators for the quality of chronic pain management in Chinese community-dwelling older adults: a Delphi study.
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 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Quality Indicators for the Pharmacological Management of Chronic Non-Cancer Pain in Older Adult Patients: An Integrative Review.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundStandardized and systematic quality assessments of chronic pain management, particularly among older adult populations, are lacking in resource-limited community settings. A specific set of indicators to evaluate the quality of chronic pain management in this population has yet to be developed. Therefore, the present study constructed a set of indicators to assess the quality of chronic pain management in Chinese community-dwelling older adults, providing a standardized reference and guidance for community health centers to manage chronic pain in this population.
methodsThe indicator set was developed in three steps. Step 1 involved preparation by forming a research team and establishing the guiding theory. Step 2 included developing an expert inquiry questionnaire based on a literature review and semi-structured interviews. Step 3 completed the construction of the indicator set through the Delphi method and hierarchical analysis to quantify the relative importance of each indicator and ensure the development of a scientifically validated and practically applicable evaluation model.
resultsThe final set of indicators for evaluating the quality of chronic pain management among community-dwelling older adults in China comprised three primary indicators: structural quality indicator, process quality indicator, and outcome quality indicator. Structural quality indicators included 3 secondary and 11 tertiary indicators; process quality indicators included 4 secondary and 21 tertiary indicators; and outcome quality indicators included 2 secondary and 4 tertiary indicators. Across two rounds of questionnaires, the response rate was 100%, with expert authority coefficients of 0.924 and 0.938, coefficients of variation ranging from 0 to 0.32 and 0 to 0.20, and Kendall's concordance coefficients of 0.302 and 0.220, respectively. Hierarchical analysis showed that the consistency ratios of all indicators were < 0.1000, indicating a balanced distribution of indicator weights.
conclusionsThis study introduces a preliminary framework, based on the "Structure-Process-Outcome" theory, to evaluate chronic pain management in Chinese community-dwelling older adults. Its reliance on expert opinions without empirical validation, exclusion of patient perspectives, and focus on Chinese communities limit its applicability and generalizability. Future research should address these limitations by incorporating patient feedback, empirically validating indicators, and evaluating their applicability across diverse populations.
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.