Review Article

Systematic Review of Multidisciplinary Chronic Pain Treatment Facilities

Table 1

List and details of papers included in the systematic review.

Country of study (specific region)Author(s) (year)Number of facilities that responded (% of total)Search strategy to identify pain treatment facilitiesEligibility criteria of pain treatment facilities sampled

Australia (countrywide)Hogg et al. (2012) [20]57 (86%)() A list of pain management services available from the Australian Pain Society was consulted
() Internet searches
() Australian region leaders were consulted to identify pain services
() Must serve at least 100 clients per annum
() Pain centers offering focused treatment on children and adults were included

Canada (countrywide)Peng et al. (2007) [18]102 (85%)() Letters sent to medical directors/chief executive officers at all Canadian hospitals and rehabilitation centers
() Provincial compensation agencies, insurance bureau of Canada, and pharmaceutical industry representatives contacted
() List reviewed by provincial representatives involved in the study and insured eligibility as a MPTF
() Advertise as a pain clinic or pain center or offer multidisciplinary pain services
() Staff must include at least three different types of health care disciplines, one of which must be medical

Canada (countrywide)Peng et al. (2007) [21]5 (100%)The same search protocol as Peng et al. (2007) [18]() Advertise as a pain clinic, pain center, or multidisciplinary pain services
() Staff must include at least three different types of health care disciplines, one of which must be medical
() Pain services must exclusively be offered to children up until the age of 18

Canada (countrywide) Peng et al. (2008) [17]102 (85%)The same search protocol as Peng et al. (2007) [18]The same eligibility criteria as Peng et al. (2007) [18]

Canada (Québec)Veillette et al. (2005) [22]50 (100%)() Heads of anaesthesia departments were contacted at all acute care hospitals in Québec
() Pain centers serving pediatric populations or without permanent anesthesiologists were excluded
() The anaesthesia departments contacted must offer treatment for patients with chronic noncancer pain

Italy (countrywide)De Benedittis and Lorenzetti (1989) [23]63 (58%)Search strategy not reportedEligibility criteria not reported

United Kingdom (Scotland)Bisset (1988) [24]16 (unclear)() All known consultant anaesthetic members of the North British Pain Association in Scotland were contacted
() If no anaesthetic member was listed for a hospital, a known consultant was contacted
() If no anesthetic member or known consultant was listed/available, a listed anaesthetist in the register at that hospital was contacted
() Pain relief clinics under anaesthetic management

United Kingdom (countrywide)Clinical Standards Advisory Group (2000) [25]121 (56%)() All National Health Service Trusts in the United Kingdom as listed in Binley’s Directory of NHS management (1997) were contacted() All sites were required to be a National Health Service Trust
() Sites had to provide one or more pain services

United Kingdom1 (countrywide)Dr. Foster & the Pain Society (2003) [26]161 (76%)() Distributed to a list of member contacts provided by the Pain Society at 214 hospitals across the United Kingdom() Hospital must have a pain service

United Kingdom (England and Wales)National Pain Audit (2011) [27]214 (unclear)() Contacts emailed in the following settings: within Primary Care Trusts, Local Health Boards, Hospital Audit Leads, PCT audit leads, and British Pain Society members
() Letters sent to all chief executives of the Chief Medical Officer
() Advertisements placed in the chief executives bulletin, the British Pain Society Newsletter, and Faculty of Pain Medicine section of the Royal College of Anaesthetists Bulletin
() Hospital services using treatment definition code 191
() Any service that met the Hospital Episode Statistics treatment definition of a specialist pain management site
() No restrictions were made according to clinic settings

United Kingdom (England and Wales)National Pain Audit (2013) [28]121 (66%)() List of clinics obtained from the National Health Service Choices websiteEligibility criteria not reported

United States (North Carolina)Castel et al. (2009) [29]46 (74%)() North Carolina residents with chronic back and/or neck pain were surveyed
() Searching North Carolina Yellow Pages listings electronically
() Clinics had to treat patients experiencing chronic pain lasting at least three months
() Patients must be suffering from back and neck pain
() Pain services with only one specialty were not sampled in the Yellow Pages electronic search

United States (region not specified)Csordas and Clark (1992) [30]25 (93%)() Reviewing advertisements and news features, centers inviting research
() Searching lists published in magazines and directories
() Inquiries/referrals from medical professionals and colleagues
() Asking survey responders about other clinics
() Must identify itself as a pain center or offer a pain program

United States (countrywide)Hickling et al. (1985) [31]76 (66%)() Consulting the pain directory of the American Society of Anesthesiologists published in 1979 Eligible clinics had to meet 8 out of 11 criteria developed by the American Society of Anesthesiologists directory (1979):
() Space and beds exclusively available to the pain service
() Staffed by full-time professional staff of at least two disciplines
() Full-time supportive staff
() Process for screening and selection of patients
() Review and maintenance must be recorded
() Consultants from multiple disciplines
() Routine psychological assessment
() Research activities that are ongoing
() Training program
() Therapy able to target the physical and psychosocial problems of patients
() Periodic outcome evaluation

Funded by an educational grant from Napp Pharmaceuticals Ltd.