| Title |
Intrathecal pain management: a team-based approach
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Pain Research, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/jpr.s142147 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jeremy A Adler, Neona M Lotz |
| Abstract |
Physician assistants (PAs), nurse practitioners (NPs), and registered nurses (RNs) provide professional services on pain management teams. This review provides an overview of the practical management of chronic pain with intrathecal (IT) therapy using an interprofessional approach (eg, physicians and other health care professionals), with a focus on the contributions of PAs, NPs, and RNs. Narrative review based on literature searches of the Medline database and treatment guidelines on the use of IT therapy in the management of patients with chronic pain. The specific roles and responsibilities of PAs, NPs, and RNs in the management of patients receiving IT therapy vary by practice. In many pain treatment centers, PAs, NPs, and RNs are responsible for patient education, postimplant maintenance, and ongoing supportive care of patients receiving IT therapy. Topics that we address include patient selection, patient expectations and goal setting, medication selection, outcome assessment, and treatment adjustment. Currently, morphine and ziconotide (a nonopioid, selective N-type calcium channel blocker) are the only agents approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for IT analgesia. We provide relevant information on the dosing, titration, and adverse effect management of these medications for PAs, NPs, and RNs responsible for administering IT therapy. PAs, NPs, and RNs are valuable members of IT pain management teams. Treatment success requires ongoing monitoring of efficacy and adverse effects, with corresponding adjustments to medication selection and dosing, in addition to good communication among the health care professionals involved in patient care. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 25% |
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 59 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 10% |
| Lecturer | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 11 | 19% |
| Unknown | 21 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 22% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 5% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 7 | 12% |
| Unknown | 25 | 42% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 16 January 2024.
All research outputs
#5,312,757
of 25,223,158 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pain Research
#563
of 1,955 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#86,776
of 336,079 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pain Research
#22
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,223,158 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,955 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.1. 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 336,079 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 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 63% of its contemporaries.