Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to critically examine the extent of patient centrality within integrated chronic back pain management services and compare policy rhetoric with practice reality.
Context: Integrated chronic back pain management services.
Data sources: We have drawn on theories of integration and context specific journals related to integration and pain management between 1966 and 2006 to identify evidence of patient centrality within integrated chronic pain management services.
Discussions: Despite policy rhetoric and guidelines which promote ‘patient centrality’ within multidisciplinary services, we argue that evaluations of these services are scant. Many papers have focussed on the assessment of pain in multidisciplinary services as opposed to the patients' experience of these services.
Conclusions: A latent measure of the reality of its magnitude needs to be captured through analysis of the patient's perspectives. Capturing patients' thoughts about integrated services will promote patient centrality and support the reality rather than endorse the rhetoric.
Context: Integrated chronic back pain management services.
Data sources: We have drawn on theories of integration and context specific journals related to integration and pain management between 1966 and 2006 to identify evidence of patient centrality within integrated chronic pain management services.
Discussions: Despite policy rhetoric and guidelines which promote ‘patient centrality’ within multidisciplinary services, we argue that evaluations of these services are scant. Many papers have focussed on the assessment of pain in multidisciplinary services as opposed to the patients' experience of these services.
Conclusions: A latent measure of the reality of its magnitude needs to be captured through analysis of the patient's perspectives. Capturing patients' thoughts about integrated services will promote patient centrality and support the reality rather than endorse the rhetoric.