ArticlePatient education and counseling2025
Exploring the impact of a pain assessment information visualization tool on provider-patient pain discussion with limited English proficiency Hmong patients.
Article in Patient education and counseling, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis pilot study examines the impact of the Pain Assessment Information Visualization (InfoViz) Tool on the length of the patient visit for Hmong patients with limited English proficiency (LEP).
methodsA static design study was used to collect data from a triad of 20 Hmong patients with LEP, medical interpreters, and clinicians in the usual care group followed by 20 triads in the intervention group in primary care. We analyzed patient-clinician communication audio-recorded visits in primary care, examining both the length of the visit and the nature of the clinician efforts to gather more information using Svarstad's clinician conversation conceptualization to explore probing frequencies for three pain categories: pain location, severity, and quality in the intervention group (Pain InfoViz Tool) and usual care group.
resultsThe usual care group spent a longer time on pain discussions (Mean = 19.56 min, SD=20.17) compared to the intervention group (Mean = 12.39 min, SD=7.78). Clinicians in the intervention group probed less than those in the usual care group. Patients in the intervention group provided more pain information to clinicians than those in the usual care group.
conclusionsThe tool appears to shorten the time it takes to discuss the patient's pain. It may have positively impacted Hmong patients with LEP' ability to describe their pain more clearly, resulting in less time and fewer assessment probes needed by clinicians. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Implementing the tool in clinical settings may lead to more efficient pain-related discussions.
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.