Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25995648›Full record

ArticleJournal of pain research2015

Priority interventions to improve the management of chronic non-cancer pain in primary care: a participatory research of the ACCORD program.

Lyne Lalonde, Manon Choinière, Elisabeth Martin, Lise Lévesque, Eveline Hudon, Danielle Bélanger, Sylvie Perreault, Anaïs Lacasse, Marie-Claude Laliberté

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of pain research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes of the Quebec population toward chronic pain: Where are we now?Canadian journal of pain = Revue canadienne de la douleur · 2017
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Lyne LalondeFaculty of Pharmacy, Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada ; Équipe de recherche en soins de première ligne, Centre de santé et de services sociaux de Laval, Laval, QC, Canada ; Centre de recherche, Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CRCHUM), Montreal, QC, Canada ; Sanofi Aventis Endowment Chair in Ambulatory Pharmaceutical Care, Faculty of Pharmacy Université de Montréal and Centre de santé et de services sociaux de Laval, QC, Canada.
Manon ChoinièreCentre de recherche, Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CRCHUM), Montreal, QC, Canada ; Department of Anesthesiology Faculty of Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Elisabeth MartinCentre de recherche, Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CRCHUM), Montreal, QC, Canada.
Lise LévesqueCentre de recherche, Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CRCHUM), Montreal, QC, Canada.
Eveline HudonÉquipe de recherche en soins de première ligne, Centre de santé et de services sociaux de Laval, Laval, QC, Canada ; Centre de recherche, Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CRCHUM), Montreal, QC, Canada ; Department of Family Medicine and Emergency, Faculty of Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Danielle BélangerÉquipe de recherche en soins de première ligne, Centre de santé et de services sociaux de Laval, Laval, QC, Canada.
Sylvie PerreaultFaculty of Pharmacy, Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada ; Sanofi Aventis Endowment Chair in Drug Utilization, Faculty of Pharmacy, Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Anaïs LacasseDépartement des sciences de la santé, Université du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue, Rouyn-Noranda, QC, Canada.
Marie-Claude LalibertéFaculty of Pharmacy, Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada ; AbbVie Corporation, St-Laurent, QC, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThere is evidence that the management of chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) in primary care is far from being optimal. A 1-day workshop was held to explore the perceptions of key actors regarding the challenges and priority interventions to improve CNCP management in primary care.

methodsUsing the Chronic Care Model as a conceptual framework, physicians (n=6), pharmacists (n=6), nurses (n=6), physiotherapists (n=6), psychologists (n=6), pain specialists (n=6), patients (n=3), family members (n=3), decision makers and managers (n=4), and pain researchers (n=7) took part in seven focus groups and five nominal groups.

resultsChallenges identified in focus group discussions were related to five dimensions: knowledge gap, "work in silos", lack of awareness that CNCP represents an important clinical problem, difficulties in access to health professionals and services, and patient empowerment needs. Based on the nominal group discussions, the following priority interventions were identified: interdisciplinary continuing education, interdisciplinary treatment approach, regional expert leadership, creation and definition of care paths, and patient education programs.

conclusionBarriers to optimal management of CNCP in primary care are numerous. Improving its management cannot be envisioned without considering multifaceted interventions targeting several dimensions of the Chronic Care Model and focusing on both clinicians and patients.

Indexed as

chronic paincommunity-based participatory researchhealth service accessibilitypatient-centered careprimary health care

Identifiers

PMID25995648
PMCPMC4425332

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.