ArticleBJGP open2025
Chronic pain: prevalence, demographic inequalities, and healthcare utilisation. A primary care database analysis.
Article in BJGP open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Expectations and communication in opioid pain management: a qualitative study of patients' experience.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2026Article
- Characteristics, impact and management of chronic pain in black women with HIV.International journal of STD & AIDS · 2026Article
- Nano-Enhanced Optical Delivery of Multi-Characteristic Opsin Gene for Spinal Optogenetic Modulation of Pain.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Chain mediating effect of somatic pain and sleep duration between chronic disease count and depressive symptoms in older adults.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChronic pain (CP) is an ill-defined condition, often under-recorded in primary care records.
aimTo determine prevalence, evidence of health inequalities, primary care consultation rates, and healthcare utilisation costs of CP. DESIGN &
settingCross-sectional, retrospective study using anonymised primary care data from all GP practices in one inner-city London area.
methodCP was defined on the basis of analgesic medication codes and novel inclusion of diagnostic codes for conditions known to be strongly associated with CP. CP prevalence and consultation rates were determined; comparisons were made with 31 other long-term conditions (LTCs). Consultation cost estimates were based on healthcare professional type and consultation mode.
resultsIn total, 358 889 adult patients were registered in sample practices, with continuous (12-month) healthcare records available for 327 800 (91.3%). CP prevalence was 18.6%; the second most prevalent LTC after anxiety at 21.4%. CP mean annual consultation rates were 15.3 per patient, the highest LTC consultation rate. CP incurred the highest primary care consultation costs of any of the included LTCs. Age was the strongest predictor of CP, particularly in those aged ≥60 years (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] for 60-69 years: 9.32; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 8.83 to 9.84; compared with those aged 18-29 years). Much smaller AORs were found for ethnicity, social deprivation, sex, and non-UK country of birth.
conclusionCP represents the most demanding LTC, in terms of consultation rates and costs, managed in primary care. Yet there is considerable uncertainty about optimal management and alternatives to long-term, high-volume primary care consultation rates.
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.