↓ Skip to main content

Managing Chronic Pain in Primary Care: It Really Does Take a Village

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of General Internal Medicine, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
55 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
115 Mendeley
Title
Managing Chronic Pain in Primary Care: It Really Does Take a Village
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine, March 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11606-017-4047-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Karen Seal, William Becker, Jennifer Tighe, Yongmei Li, Tessa Rife

Abstract

Some healthcare systems are relieving primary care providers (PCPs) of "the burden" of managing chronic pain and opioid prescribing, instead offloading chronic pain management to pain specialists. Last year the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended a biopsychosocial approach to pain management that discourages opioid use and promotes exercise therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy and non-opioid medications as first-line patient-centered, multi-modal treatments best delivered by an interdisciplinary team. In the private sector, interdisciplinary pain management services are challenging to assemble, separate from primary care and not typically reimbursed. In contrast, in a fully integrated health care system like the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), interdisciplinary clinics already exist, and one such clinic, the Integrated Pain Team (IPT) clinic, integrates and co-locates pain-trained PCPs, a psychologist and a pharmacist in primary care. The IPT clinic has demonstrated significant success in opioid risk reduction. Unfortunately, proposed legislation threatens to dismantle aspects of the VA such that these interdisciplinary services may be eliminated. This Perspective explains why it is critical not only to maintain interdisciplinary pain services in VHA, but also to consider disseminating this model to other health care systems in order to implement patient-centered, guideline-concordant care more broadly.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 115 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 115 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 14%
Researcher 9 8%
Student > Bachelor 8 7%
Unspecified 6 5%
Other 26 23%
Unknown 31 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 13%
Psychology 14 12%
Social Sciences 8 7%
Unspecified 6 5%
Other 17 15%
Unknown 35 30%
Attention Score in Context

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 05 April 2018.
All research outputs
#16,805,811
of 24,717,821 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#6,224
of 8,000 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#200,422
of 313,785 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#63
of 89 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,717,821 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,000 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.2. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 313,785 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 89 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.