The present study was part of a larger mixed-methods study concerning facilitators and barriers to living with chronic pain after spinal cord injury. The agreement with themes obtained in qualitative interviews were quantified in a large online survey and overarching themes were defined by factor analysis. The present study aimed to define subgroups based on cluster analysis of the overarching themes' factor scores and to compare the subgroups on pain-related variables. Three subgroups-high pain impact, moderate pain impact, and low pain impact-emerged. The high pain impact subgroup experienced severe pain with neuropathic pain characteristics; used pain medication, multiple coping strategies, and self-remedies; and considered information about pain and its management critical, but were not able to communicate well about their pain. The moderate pain impact subgroup carried on despite pain, considered pain information important, and used multiple approaches to manage their pain, but used less medication owing to concerns about side effects and addiction. The low pain impact subgroup considered information about pain, pain treatments, and communication regarding pain less important than the other subgroups did. This study suggests that treatment approaches need to be individually tailored not only to type of pain, but also to personal factors and preferences.
People who experience significant pain impact after spinal cord injury use multiple approaches to manage their pain. Many have concerns about side effects and addiction, and consider information about pain and its management, including pharmacologic, nonpharmacologic, and self-remedies, a high priority. Therefore, patients' personal preferences may provide additional tailoring options for patient-centered treatments.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 12 September 2018.
All research outputs
#4,520,149
of 34,404,538 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pain
#864
of 3,233 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,625
of 373,046 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pain
#15
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,404,538 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,233 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 373,046 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 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.
