↓ Skip to main content

A qualitative study of professional stakeholders’ perceptions about the implementation of a stepped care pain platform for people experiencing chronic widespread pain

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Family Practice, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A qualitative study of professional stakeholders’ perceptions about the implementation of a stepped care pain platform for people experiencing chronic widespread pain
Published in
BMC Family Practice, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12875-018-0838-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Judith Gellatly, Gosia Pelikan, Paul Wilson, Kate Woodward-Nutt, Michael Spence, Anthony Jones, Karina Lovell

Abstract

Chronic widespread pain (CWP) is a major public health problem. Many people experiencing CWP experience mental health problems such as anxiety or depression. Complete relief of skeletal and body pain symptoms is unlikely but with appropriate treatment the impact upon quality of life, functioning and mental health symptoms can be reduced. Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) is widely used for a range of health conditions and can have short and long-term improvements in patients with CWP. This research aimed to explore, from a professional stakeholder perspective, the implementation of a local Pain Platform offering a stepped care approach for interventions including telephone delivered CBT (T-CBT). Fourteen professional stakeholders holding various roles across primary and secondary care services within the Pain Platform took part in semi-structured interviews. Their views and experiences of the implementation of the Pain Platform were explored. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed according to Normalisation Process Theory (NPT). Professional stakeholders were positive about the Pain Platform and its potential to overcome previously identified existing access issues to psychological interventions for CWP patients. It was considered a valuable part of ensuring that patients' preferences and needs are more readily addressed. In some circumstances, however, introducing psychological interventions to patients was considered challenging and the introduction of new referral processes was raised concerns. To ensure sustainability more work is required to reduce professional isolation and ensure efficient referral procedures between primary and secondary care services are established to reduce concerns over issues related to clinical governance and potential risk to patient. The findings provide professional insight into the key challenges of introducing a Pain Platform incorporating psychological support across primary and secondary care services within a local service. These included development of sustainable procedures and closer working relationships. Areas requiring future development are identified.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 15%
Researcher 4 12%
Other 3 9%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Other 6 18%
Unknown 6 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 24%
Psychology 7 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 12%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 9%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 9 27%

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 12 September 2019.
All research outputs
#12,074,628
of 15,835,226 outputs
Outputs from BMC Family Practice
#1,256
of 1,606 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#190,258
of 276,081 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Family Practice
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,835,226 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,606 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 276,081 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them