| Title |
Understanding patient perspectives on management of their chronic pain: online survey protocol
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Pain Research, December 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/jpr.s124710 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Manasi Gaikwad, Simon Vanlint, G Lorimer Moseley, Murthy N Mittinty, Nigel Stocks |
| Abstract |
It is widely recognized that both doctors and patients report discontent regarding pain management provided and received. The impact of chronic pain on an individual's life resonates beyond physical and mental suffering; equal or at times even greater impact is observed on an individual's personal relationships, ability to work, and social interactions. The degree of these effects in each individual varies, mainly because of differences in biological factors, social environment, past experiences, support, and belief systems. Therefore, it is equally possible that these individual patient characteristics could influence their treatment outcome. Research shows that meeting patient expectations is a major challenge for health care systems attempting to provide optimal treatment strategies. However, patient perspectives and expectations in chronic pain management have not been studied extensively. The aim of this study is to investigate the views, perceptions, beliefs, and expectations of individuals who experience chronic pain on a daily basis, and the strategies used by them in managing chronic pain. This paper describes the study protocol to be used in a cross sectional survey of chronic pain patients. The study population will comprise of individuals aged ≥18 years, who have experienced pain for ≥3 months with no restrictions of sex, ethnicity, or region of residence. Ethics approval for our study was obtained from Humans research ethics committees, University of Adelaide and University of South Australia. Multinomial logistic regression will be used to estimate the effect of duration and character of pain, on patient's perception of time to recovery and supplement intake. Logistic regression will also be used for estimating the effect of patient-provider relationship and pain education on patient-reported recovery and pain intensity. Knowledge about the perceptions and beliefs of patients with chronic pain could inform future policies, research, health care professional education, and development of individualized treatment strategies. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 86 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 9% |
| Other | 7 | 8% |
| Other | 20 | 23% |
| Unknown | 18 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 22 | 25% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 24% |
| Psychology | 8 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 11 | 13% |
| Unknown | 20 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 10 January 2017.
All research outputs
#18,498,050
of 22,919,505 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pain Research
#1,394
of 1,754 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#304,716
of 416,479 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pain Research
#44
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,919,505 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,754 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 416,479 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.