Systematic Review of Multidisciplinary Chronic Pain Treatment Facilities

Table 8

Multidisciplinary status of pain treatment facilities.

Author(s) (year)	% of facilities offering training	% of facilities conducting research	% of facilities meeting IASP criteria by level		% of facilities offering a PMP
			1	2
Australia
Hogg et al. (2012) [20]	33.3%	—	46%	33%	74%
Canada
Peng et al. (2007) [18]	76%	64%	—	—	—
Peng et al. (2007) [21]	100%	60%	—	—	—
Peng et al. (2008) [17]	—	—	—	39%	—
Italy
De Benedittis and Lorenzetti (1989) [23]	76.2%	79.4%	—	—	—
United Kingdom
Clinical Standards Advisory Group (2000) [25]	—	36%	—	—	40%
Dr. Foster & the Pain Society (2003) [26]	—	—	—	—	58%
National Pain Audit (2011) [27]	—	—	—	—	—
England	53%/66%	27%	—	40%	—
Wales	50%/70%/80%	20%	—	60%	—
National Pain Audit (2013) [28]	—	100%	—	—	—
United States
Castel et al. (2009) [29]	—	—	—	4.3%	—
Hickling et al. (1985) [31]	76.3%	—	—	—	—

Note. Information on multidisciplinary status was not available for Bisset [24], Csordas and Clark [30], and Veillette et al. [22].
IASP: International Association for the Study of Pain.
PMP: pain management program.
Training for medical and physiotherapy students.
Training for nurses.
Training for medical students.
Training for physiotherapist students.
Reported only for facilities considered to be multidisciplinary pain centers.
According to 2009 guidelines
According to 1990 guidelines.
No citation provided: unclear what guidelines were used.