ArticleJournal of pain research2025
The Association of Chronic Pain and Complementary Health Approach Usage: A Comprehensive Analysis Adjusting for Demographics.
Article in Journal of pain research, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Chronic pain is a significant public health issue linked to reduced quality of life and higher healthcare costs. Its complex etiology complicates treatment plans, leading many to seek complementary health approaches (CHAs). However, utilization patterns and clinical effects remain understudied. Objective: To quantify the association between chronic pain and CHA utilization in US adults, focusing on osteopathic manipulative treatment and other non-traditional modalities, and to evaluate whether associations persist after adjusting for demographics. Methods: A cross-sectional online survey of 3022 US adults examined CHA use among individuals diagnosed with chronic pain in the past year. Statistical analyses included Chi-Square tests of bivariate associations and logistic regression to evaluate associations with and without demographic adjustments. CHAs were categorized into the five NIH-defined groups: Physical, Psychological, Nutritional, Combined, and System-Based, encompassing nearly 30 interventions. CHA usage, favorable expectation, and favorable experience of these modalities were analyzed. Results: Individuals with chronic pain demonstrated significantly higher overall utilization of CHAs than those without (aOR = 2.36, 95% CI: 1.44-3.87), including osteopathic manipulative treatment (aOR = 3.29, 95% CI: 2.15-5.02). Despite low expectancy for positive outcomes across groups, chronic pain patients reported lower expectations for various modalities. Favorable experience for Any CHA among those with chronic pain was high (93.5%), especially for physical CHAs, acupuncture, and art, music, or dance therapy. Conclusion: The increased use of CHAs among chronic pain patients underscores unmet needs in conventional care. Future longitudinal research should further clarify the factors influencing CHA adoption and evaluate their therapeutic efficacy.
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.