↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Are patients' and doctors' accounts of the first specialist consultation for chronic back pain in agreement?

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Pain Research, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
6 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
Title
Are patients' and doctors' accounts of the first specialist consultation for chronic back pain in agreement?
Published in
Journal of Pain Research, November 2016
DOI 10.2147/jpr.s119851
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kathy B White, John Lee, Amanda C de C Williams

Abstract

The first consultation at a specialist pain clinic is potentially a pivotal event in a patient's pain history, affecting treatment adherence and engagement with longer term self-management. What doctors communicate to patients about their chronic pain and how patients interpret doctors' messages and explanations in pain consultations are under-investigated, particularly in specialist care. Yet, patients value personalized information about their pain problem. Sixteen patients in their first specialist pain clinic consultation and the doctors they consulted were interviewed shortly after the consultation. Framework analysis, using patient themes, was used to identify full match, partial match, or mismatch of patient-doctor dyads' understandings of the consultation messages. Patients and doctors agreed, mainly implicitly, that medical treatment aiming at pain relief was primary and little time was devoted to discussion of self-management. Clinically relevant areas of mismatch included the explanation of pain, the likelihood of medical treatments providing relief, the long-term treatment plan, and the extent to which patients were expected to be active in achieving treatment goals. Overall, there appears to be reasonable concordance between doctors and patients, and patients were generally satisfied with their first consultation with a specialist. Two topics showed substantial mismatch, the estimated likely outcome of the next planned intervention and, assuming (as doctors but not patients did) that this was unsuccessful, the long-term treatment plan. It appeared that more complex issues often generate divergence of understanding or agreement. Despite the widespread recommendations to medical practitioners to check patients' understanding directly, it does not appear to be routine practice. It is hoped that this research encourages more detailed examination of shared and divergent experiences of pain consultations and also their influence on the subsequent course of intervention and adherence to treatment (not addressed here).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 2%
Unknown 45 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 13%
Student > Bachelor 6 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Other 3 7%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 14 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 13 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 26%
Psychology 3 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Unspecified 1 2%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 12 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 April 2021.
All research outputs
#4,834,473
of 23,314,015 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pain Research
#516
of 1,787 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,573
of 313,095 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pain Research
#17
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,314,015 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,787 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 313,095 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.