ArticleTherapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease2026
Stakeholder perspectives on musculoskeletal pain assessment and management in the UK: a qualitative study.
Article in Therapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease, 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: Musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions, including rheumatic musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs), are leading causes of persistent pain, disability, reduced quality of life, impaired work participation and increased healthcare utilisation. Despite therapeutic advances, pain remains challenging to assess and manage because unidimensional measures may miss multidimensional impact, and person-centred, mechanism-informed, equitable approaches are inconsistently implemented. Objectives: This study explored stakeholder perspectives on (1) gaps and limitations in current MSK pain assessment; (2) priorities for improving MSK pain management across pharmacological, non-pharmacological, digital and procedural/surgical approaches and (3) service and research priorities needed to deliver equitable, person-centred, mechanism-informed care. Design: We conducted an anonymised online survey (Google Forms) between July and September 2025 across UK Musculoskeletal Translational Research Collaboration (TRC) networks. Methods: Adults (⩾18 years) able to read English were invited via TRC mailing lists, partner newsletters and professional networks. Open-ended questions explored experiences of pain assessment and management, perceived gaps and priorities for improvement and research. Free-text responses were exported, cleaned and analysed in NVivo using inductive reflexive thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke), supported by peer debriefing and an audit trail. Descriptive statistics summarised participant roles. Results: Thirty-five participants responded, with 54.3% patients, 40% healthcare providers and 5.7% researchers. Five overarching themes were identified: (1) appreciation of pain mechanisms to guide management, (2) holistic and person-centred care, (3) need for individualised treatment plans, (4) limitations of current pain assessment methods and (5) underestimation of pain's broader impact. Subthemes highlighted complementary therapies, digital resources and telehealth, self-management education, equitable access, multidomain assessments and clinician capacity to deliver comprehensive biopsychosocial care. Conclusion: Stakeholders in this TRC-network sample prioritised individualised, holistic and mechanism-informed MSK pain management integrating pharmacological, non-pharmacological and digital strategies while addressing equity and access. Findings support moving beyond single-item intensity measures, strengthening self-management, and adopt biopsychosocial approaches. These hypothesis-generating insights should be validated in broader, more diverse samples.
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.