ArticleBMJ open2026
Integrating users' perspectives during the development of the Chronic Pain Recommendation Map: protocol for a qualitative descriptive study.
Article in BMJ open, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionOne in five people experience chronic pain globally, yet management remains suboptimal and discrepant guideline recommendations are common. To increase pain literacy and improve concordance between evidence and practice, we are developing a freely accessible digital Chronic Pain Recommendation Map (e-Chronic Pain RecMap) focusing on three priority areas: opioids, cannabis and spine-related interventional procedures. The aim of this study is to gather participants' perspectives on the mockups of the RecMap interfaces throughout its development, in terms of design, usability, content relevance and clarity. Feedback will guide iterative refinements of the platform and align the RecMap with user expectations and needs.
methodsWe will use a qualitative descriptive approach to explore participants' perspectives through online semi-structured interviews. Participants will be purposively sampled to include health researchers, healthcare providers, individuals with living or lived experience of chronic pain and policymakers. Based on information power, we aim to recruit approximately 20 participants, at least 5 participants per target user group, with assessment of sample size adequacy throughout data collection. We will analyse interview transcripts using inductive content analysis and findings will inform iterative refinements to the RecMap's content and design. To increase methodological rigour, we will apply established qualitative descriptive techniques including detailed description of data analysis, triangulation of investigators, thick data description, dependability, confirmability and reflexivity. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board approved this study. We will conduct online interviews and record audio only. After transcription, we will de-identify all collected data and ensure that participants' names are not linked to any transcripts or study materials. We will share a summary of our final findings with participants and interest-holders via email, and we plan to publish the final manuscript in a peer-reviewed journal.
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.