↓ Skip to main content

Randomized Trial of Chronic Pain Self-Management Program in the Community or Clinic for Low-Income Primary Care Patients

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of General Internal Medicine, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
203 Mendeley
Title
Randomized Trial of Chronic Pain Self-Management Program in the Community or Clinic for Low-Income Primary Care Patients
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine, January 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11606-017-4244-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Barbara J. Turner, Yuanyuan Liang, Maureen J. Simmonds, Natalia Rodriguez, Raudel Bobadilla, Zenong Yin

Abstract

Patients with chronic pain often lack the skills and resources necessary to manage this disease. To develop a chronic pain self-management program reflecting community stakeholders' priorities and to compare functional outcomes from training in two settings. A parallel-group randomized trial. Eligible subjects were 35-70 years of age, with chronic non-cancer pain treated with opioids for >2 months at two primary care and one HIV clinic serving low-income Hispanics. In one study arm, the 6-month program was delivered in monthly one-on-one clinic meetings by a community health worker (CHW) trained as a chronic pain health educator, and in the second arm, content experts gave eight group lectures in a nearby library. Five times Sit-to-Stand test (5XSTS) assessed at baseline and 3 and 6 months. Other reported physical and cognitive measures include the 6-Min Walk (6 MW), Borg Perceived Effort Test (Borg Effort), 50-ft Speed Walk (50FtSW), SF-12 Physical Component Summary (SF-12 PCS), Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS), and Symbol-Digit Modalities Test (SDMT). Intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses in mixed-effects models adjust for demographics, body mass index, maximum pain, study arm, and measurement time. Multiple imputation was used for sensitivity analyses. Among 111 subjects, 53 were in the clinic arm and 58 in the community arm. In ITT analyses at 6 months, subjects in both arms performed the 5XSTS test faster (-4.9 s, P = 0.001) and improved scores on Borg Effort (-1, P = 0.02), PSFS (1.6, P < 0.001), and SDMT (5.9, P < 0.001). Only the clinic arm increased the 6 MW (172.4 ft, P = 0.02) and SF-12 PCS (6.2 points, P < 0.001). 50ftSW did not change (P = 0.15). Results were similar with multiple imputation. Five falls were possible adverse events. In low-income subjects with chronic pain, physical and cognitive function improved significantly after self-management training from expert lectures in the community and in-clinic meetings with a trained health educator.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 203 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 203 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 29 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 10%
Student > Bachelor 21 10%
Researcher 18 9%
Other 14 7%
Other 28 14%
Unknown 72 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 40 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 38 19%
Psychology 13 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 3%
Social Sciences 7 3%
Other 23 11%
Unknown 75 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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
#6,439,423
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#3,598
of 7,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#125,154
of 449,007 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#68
of 140 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,806 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 449,007 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 140 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 50% of its contemporaries.