ArticleJournal of primary care & community health
Identifying Health Outcomes for Integrative Group Medical Visits for Patients With Chronic Pain: Results of Qualitative Interviews With Staff, Administrators, and Providers Working in Safety-Net Settings.
Article in Journal of primary care & community health. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWhile biopsychosocial interventions are recommended for treatment of patients with chronic pain, outcome measurement frequently does not take a multifaceted approach to assessing patient outcomes. As primary care settings increasingly implement chronic pain approaches such as Integrative Group Medical Visits (IGMV), a comprehensive yet pragmatic measurement approach is needed to capture biopsychosocial outcomes.
methodsWe recruited 21 clinicians, administrators, and staff with direct experience implementing IGMV in safety-net settings to participate in semi-structured qualitative interviews. Participants were recruited from 6 Federally-Qualified Health Centers and 4 Safety-Net Hospital outpatient clinics representing 6 states across the U.S. We first analyzed interview transcripts using the Consolidated Framework of Implementation Research, then used inductive thematic content analysis to identify themes related to what participants currently measure and the outcomes they view as important to be measuring.
resultsThematic content analysis revealed 3 themes: variability of measures chosen, rationale for measures chosen, and desire for biopsychosocial outcome measurement tailored to IGMV for chronic pain. Thirteen different measures were used across 9 sites. The choice of measures was driven by clinical utility and/or administrative incentives. Interviewees described that as patients progressed through IGMV they demonstrated improved health through improvements in social support, self-efficacy in pain management, self-management behaviors, and improved physical function. The measures currently used address most but not all these outcomes.
conclusionWe recommend developing and refining a biopsychosocial outcome measurement tool that addresses unique aspects of IGMV. These findings contribute to a growing consensus on how to measure actionable, patient-centered data on biopsychosocial interventions for chronic pain.
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.