ArticleBJA open2025
A GAP analysis of the current state of Pain Management Services in the UK, 2024.
Article in BJA open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Barriers to interventional pain management in patients with cancer: a systematic review.BMC palliative care · 2026Pooled it
- Who is providing pain care? Mapping chronic pain services across Scotland using freedom of information requests.British journal of pain · 2026Article
- Rethinking pain: a paradigm shift in primary care for chronic pain via community-based, culturally-responsive GP support.Pain management · 2025Article
- Bridging the GAP: a critical analysis of pain management services in the United Kingdom.British journal of anaesthesia · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In the UK, multidisciplinary services for patients experiencing chronic pain are currently commissioned by the NHS as specialised services. Pain services across the UK were placed under significant strain during the COVID pandemic. The 'GAP Analysis working group' (GAP group) was commissioned by the Board of the Faculty of Pain Medicine (FPM) in November 2021 to evaluate the post-COVID state of pain services across the country. Methods: The GAP group's remit was to establish any deficit in pain services when measured against the service 'gold standard' outlined in the published FPM document 'Core Standards for Pain Management Services volume 2.0' (CSPMS). A survey was developed using an iterative consensus process among the group and was distributed to all FPM members. Results: The survey included questions pertaining to 21 standards. There were 164 respondents to this GAP analysis from 97 individual clinical sites delivering pain services in the UK. The majority of respondents worked in secondary care (74%), followed by tertiary care (23%) and finally primary care (3%). No single standard was met by all reporting sites. The degree of compliance with individual standards varied, ranging from only 30% of sites reporting full compliance (standard 9: research and development) to 79% of sites reporting full compliance (standard 21: interventional pain procedure). Conclusions: The following aspects of chronic pain services need urgent redress: provision of paediatric pain services, provision of cancer pain services, outcome data management support, research and development, and increased support of psychological services and pain management programme access.
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.