+1 Recommend
1 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Understanding patient perspectives on management of their chronic pain – online survey protocol

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.



          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.

          Methods and analysis

          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 20

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Why patients use alternative medicine: results of a national study.

           J A Astin (1998)
          Research both in the United States and abroad suggests that significant numbers of people are involved with various forms of alternative medicine. However, the reasons for such use are, at present, poorly understood. To investigate possible predictors of alternative health care use. Three primary hypotheses were tested. People seek out these alternatives because (1) they are dissatisfied in some way with conventional treatment; (2) they see alternative treatments as offering more personal autonomy and control over health care decisions; and (3) the alternatives are seen as more compatible with the patients' values, worldview, or beliefs regarding the nature and meaning of health and illness. Additional predictor variables explored included demographics and health status. A written survey examining use of alternative health care, health status, values, and attitudes toward conventional medicine. Multiple logistic regression analyses were used in an effort to identify predictors of alternative health care use. A total of 1035 individuals randomly selected from a panel who had agreed to participate in mail surveys and who live throughout the United States. Use of alternative medicine within the previous year. The response rate was 69%. The following variables emerged as predictors of alternative health care use: more education (odds ratio [OR], 1.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-1.3); poorer health status (OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1-1.5); a holistic orientation to health (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.1-1.9); having had a transformational experience that changed the person's worldview (OR, 1 .8; 95% CI, 1 .3-2.5); any of the following health problems: anxiety (OR, 3.1; 95% CI, 1.6-6.0); back problems (OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1 .7-3.2); chronic pain (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.1 -3.5); urinarytract problems (OR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.3-3.5); and classification in a cultural group identifiable by their commitment to environmentalism, commitment to feminism, and interest in spirituality and personal growth psychology (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.4-2.7). Dissatisfaction with conventional medicine did not predict use of alternative medicine. Only 4.4% of those surveyed reported relying primarily on alternative therapies. Along with being more educated and reporting poorer health status, the majority of alternative medicine users appear to be doing so not so much as a result of being dissatisfied with conventional medicine but largely because they find these health care alternatives to be more congruent with their own values, beliefs, and philosophical orientations toward health and life.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Cognitive, Affective, and Attribute Bases of the Satisfaction Response

              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Sampling techniques


                Author and article information

                J Pain Res
                J Pain Res
                Journal of Pain Research
                Journal of Pain Research
                Dove Medical Press
                22 December 2016
                : 10
                : 31-35
                [1 ]Discipline of General Practice, School of Medicine, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA
                [2 ]Sansom Institute for Health Research, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA
                [3 ]Neuroscience Research Australia, Sydney, NSW
                [4 ]School of Public Health, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Lorimer Moseley, Sansom Institute for Health Research, University of South Australia, GPO Box 2471, Adelaide 5001, Australia, Tel +61 8 8302 2454, Fax +61 8 8302 2853, Email lorimer.moseley@ 123456gmail.com
                © 2017 Gaikwad et al. This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited

                The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.

                Study Protocol


                Comment on this article