ArticlePain research & management2026
Assessing Unmet Needs of Patients With Chronic Pain: The Development and Validation of the Needs Evaluation Questionnaire for Chronic Pain.
Article in Pain research & management, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Assessing Unmet Needs of Patients With Chronic Pain: The Development and Validation of the Needs Evaluation Questionnaire for Chronic Pain.Pain research & management · 2026Article
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
backgroundFor its high prevalence, diagnostic and therapeutic challenges, and serious burden on affected individuals and societies, chronic pain is considered a public health priority worldwide. However, there is a paucity of data regarding unmet needs of chronic pain sufferers. The aim of the present study was to develop and validate the Needs Evaluation Questionnaire for Chronic Pain (NEQ-CP) for assessing unmet needs of chronic pain patients.
methodsThe questionnaire development and validation followed some steps: (i) operational definition and item formulation; (ii) investigation about item relevance and comprehensibility; (iii) item selection based on comprehensibility and content validity; (iv) item selection based on item descriptives and item response theory; (v) reliability and validity testing. Participants (an online sample of 521 Italian patients with chronic pain associated with various diseases) were cross-sectionally administered the initial version of the questionnaire and some scales chosen for validity testing.
resultsContent validity testing led to the identification of a provisional pool of items. Item analysis and item response theory analyses allowed the selection of 21 items for the final version of the NEQ-CP. The questionnaire showed good general and local reliability, and construct and criterion validity evidence were provided.
conclusionsThe developed and validated questionnaire is an effective and easy-to-use tool in the assessment of the unmet needs of patients with chronic pain. It can be used to identify individuals requiring immediate support and to assist those involved in health policies and research in allocating resources to areas with greater and more urgent needs.
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.