ArticleBritish journal of pain2026
Cancer pain knowledge and attitudes of healthcare professionals: A systematic review of surveys and their measurement properties.
Article in British journal of pain, 2026. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Effective management of cancer-related pain (CRP) requires support from knowledgeable healthcare professionals. Existing literature states that healthcare professionals' knowledge of CRP is poor. However, there is no consistency in how knowledge and attitudes are assessed or the standards against which they are measured. This systematic review evaluates the cancer-related content and psychometric properties of surveys used to assess knowledge of CRP. Method: Using JBI methodology for Systematic Reviews of Measurement Properties, the search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO (limited to 2011-2024). Screening and extraction were completed by two researchers using the COVIDENCE system. The COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist was used to assess psychometric properties, and additional data were extracted on content feasibility. Results: A total of 1024 papers were identified, and 37 were included in the final analysis. Sixteen different surveys were found, with four being used in multiple studies. No survey was deemed superior, and all were rated poorly using the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist. The CRP content within the surveys varied significantly, with none capturing the complexity of CRP. The feasibility of administering these surveys in practice was not reported in the studies examined. Conclusion: The wide variation in the design and content of surveys identified makes it difficult to assess the current state of healthcare professionals' knowledge of CRP. This raises questions about the validity and reliability of their conclusions, as they lack a robust evaluation of psychometric properties. Further research is needed to accurately assess healthcare professionals' knowledge of CRP.
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.