↓ Skip to main content

Patient-reported outcomes in a large community-based pain medicine practice: evaluation for use in phenotype modeling

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 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
Patient-reported outcomes in a large community-based pain medicine practice: evaluation for use in phenotype modeling
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12911-015-0164-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

David A. Juckett, Fred N. Davis, Mark Gostine, Philip Reed, Rebecca Risko

Abstract

An academic, community medicine partnership was established to build a phenotype-to-outcome model targeting chronic pain. This model will be used to drive clinical decision support for pain medicine in the community setting. The first step in this effort is an examination of the electronic health records (EHR) from clinics that treat chronic pain. The biopsychosocial components provided by both patients and care providers must be of sufficient scope to populate the spectrum of patient types, treatment modalities, and possible outcomes. The patient health records from a large Midwest pain medicine practice (Michigan Pain Consultants, PC) contains physician notes, administrative codes, and patient-reported outcomes (PRO) on over 30,000 patients during the study period spanning 2010 to mid-2014. The PRO consists of a regularly administered Pain Health Assessment (PHA), a biopsychosocial, demographic, and symptomology questionnaire containing 163 items, which is completed approximately every six months with a compliance rate of over 95 %. The biopsychosocial items (74 items with Likert scales of 0-10) were examined by exploratory factor analysis and descriptive statistics to determine the number of independent constructs available for phenotypes and outcomes. Pain outcomes were examined both in the aggregate and the mean of longitudinal changes in each patient. Exploratory factor analysis of the intake PHA revealed 15 orthogonal factors representing pain levels; physical, social, and emotional functions; the effects of pain on these functions; vitality and health; and measures of outcomes and satisfaction. Seven items were independent of the factors, offering unique information. As an exemplar of outcomes from the follow-up PHAs, patients reported approximately 60 % relief in their pain. When examined in the aggregate, patients showed both a decrease in pain levels and an increase in coping skills with an increased number of visits. When examined individually, 80-85 % of patients presenting with the highest pain levels reported improvement by approximately two points on an 11-point pain scale. We conclude that the data available in a community practice can be a rich source of biopsychosocial information relevant to the phenotypes of chronic pain. It is anticipated that phenotype linkages to best treatments and outcomes can be constructed from this set of records.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 46 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 23%
Researcher 8 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 10%
Student > Postgraduate 3 6%
Student > Master 3 6%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 12 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 23%
Social Sciences 6 13%
Computer Science 4 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 8%
Psychology 3 6%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 16 33%
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 26 January 2016.
All research outputs
#17,758,791
of 22,807,037 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#1,500
of 1,988 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#179,874
of 266,679 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#32
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,807,037 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,988 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 266,679 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 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.