Consumer perspectives of the group itself in group-delivered programs for people with chronic pain: A systematic review and meta-synthesis.

IF 4 2区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Journal of Pain Pub Date : 2025-01-03 DOI:10.1016/j.jpain.2024.104774
Marelle K Wilson, Dianne J Wilson, Amelia K Searle, Shylie F Mackintosh
{"title":"Consumer perspectives of the group itself in group-delivered programs for people with chronic pain: A systematic review and meta-synthesis.","authors":"Marelle K Wilson, Dianne J Wilson, Amelia K Searle, Shylie F Mackintosh","doi":"10.1016/j.jpain.2024.104774","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Group-delivered programs for chronic pain are evidence-based and frequently used. The contribution of group factors to outcomes is unclear and there are no integrated findings on consumer perceptions of the group itself in programs for people with chronic pain. The aim of this systematic review was to search and synthesise qualitative data specifically related to the group itself in studies investigating group-delivered programs for people with chronic pain (PROSPERO, CRD42023382447). MEDLINE, EMBASE, EmCare, PsycINFO, Scopus, and CINAHL databases were searched, and qualitative studies that explored the experiences of consumers who had attended any style of group-delivered program for people with chronic pain were included. Methodological quality was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist and meta-synthesis was guided by a thematic synthesis approach. Ninety-three studies were included, with 1806 participants. Programs were predominantly multi-component, with diverse interventions and facilitators. Three analytical themes were generated: (1) Peer interaction: a program component in and of itself; (2) Comparison: frequently used and mostly helpful; and (3) Beyond the program: when the group itself contributes to change. Findings highlighted that most consumers valued the group itself, finding interaction, and comparing themselves with peers useful. Future research related to group factors in programs for people with chronic pain should include consumer participation and co-design. PERSPECTIVE: This review demonstrates that many consumers valued peer interaction and used comparison-based cognitive processing within group-delivered programs for chronic pain. Dialogue-based interactions with similar others promoted cognitive, affect, and behaviour changes. Group factors may have been underestimated and outcomes could be influenced if peer interactions within programs were optimised.</p>","PeriodicalId":51095,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pain","volume":" ","pages":"104774"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pain","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpain.2024.104774","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Group-delivered programs for chronic pain are evidence-based and frequently used. The contribution of group factors to outcomes is unclear and there are no integrated findings on consumer perceptions of the group itself in programs for people with chronic pain. The aim of this systematic review was to search and synthesise qualitative data specifically related to the group itself in studies investigating group-delivered programs for people with chronic pain (PROSPERO, CRD42023382447). MEDLINE, EMBASE, EmCare, PsycINFO, Scopus, and CINAHL databases were searched, and qualitative studies that explored the experiences of consumers who had attended any style of group-delivered program for people with chronic pain were included. Methodological quality was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist and meta-synthesis was guided by a thematic synthesis approach. Ninety-three studies were included, with 1806 participants. Programs were predominantly multi-component, with diverse interventions and facilitators. Three analytical themes were generated: (1) Peer interaction: a program component in and of itself; (2) Comparison: frequently used and mostly helpful; and (3) Beyond the program: when the group itself contributes to change. Findings highlighted that most consumers valued the group itself, finding interaction, and comparing themselves with peers useful. Future research related to group factors in programs for people with chronic pain should include consumer participation and co-design. PERSPECTIVE: This review demonstrates that many consumers valued peer interaction and used comparison-based cognitive processing within group-delivered programs for chronic pain. Dialogue-based interactions with similar others promoted cognitive, affect, and behaviour changes. Group factors may have been underestimated and outcomes could be influenced if peer interactions within programs were optimised.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
慢性疼痛患者群体交付项目中群体自身的消费者视角:系统回顾和综合。
针对慢性疼痛的小组交付方案是基于证据且经常使用的。群体因素对结果的影响尚不清楚,在针对慢性疼痛患者的项目中,消费者对群体本身的看法也没有综合的发现。本系统综述的目的是在调查慢性疼痛患者群体交付项目的研究中,搜索和综合与群体本身相关的定性数据(PROSPERO, CRD42023382447)。我们检索了MEDLINE、EMBASE、EmCare、PsycINFO、Scopus和CINAHL数据库,并纳入了针对慢性疼痛患者参加过任何类型的团体提供项目的消费者的定性研究。使用关键评估技能方案核对表评估方法学质量,采用主题综合方法指导综合。纳入了93项研究,共有1806名参与者。项目主要由多部分组成,有不同的干预措施和促进者。产生了三个分析主题:(1)同伴互动:一个程序本身的组成部分;(2)比较性:常用的,最有用的;(3)超越计划:当团体本身为改变做出贡献时。调查结果强调,大多数消费者重视群体本身,认为互动和将自己与同龄人进行比较是有益的。未来有关慢性疼痛患者方案中群体因素的研究应包括消费者参与和共同设计。观点:本综述表明,许多消费者重视同伴互动,并在慢性疼痛的群体交付方案中使用基于比较的认知加工。与相似的人进行基于对话的互动促进了认知、情感和行为的改变。群体因素可能被低估了,如果项目中的同伴互动得到优化,结果可能会受到影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Pain
Journal of Pain 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
7.50%
发文量
441
审稿时长
42 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Pain publishes original articles related to all aspects of pain, including clinical and basic research, patient care, education, and health policy. Articles selected for publication in the Journal are most commonly reports of original clinical research or reports of original basic research. In addition, invited critical reviews, including meta analyses of drugs for pain management, invited commentaries on reviews, and exceptional case studies are published in the Journal. The mission of the Journal is to improve the care of patients in pain by providing a forum for clinical researchers, basic scientists, clinicians, and other health professionals to publish original research.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Table of Contents Masthead Cannabidiol reduces neuropathic pain and cognitive impairments through activation of spinal PPARγ. Individual differences in response to repeated painful stimulation: habituation, sensitization, and nocebo effects.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1