Loading…
Pilot field testing of the chronic pain classification for ICD-11: the results of ecological coding
A task force of the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) has developed a classification of chronic pain for the ICD-11 consisting of seven major categories. The objective was to test whether the proposed categories were exhaustive and mutually exclusive. In addition, the perceived...
Saved in:
Published in: | BMC public health 2018-11, Vol.18 (1), p.1239-1239, Article 1239 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c626t-4d74fd22c6b779571f9ea27181c7eead557f6c54706834dabae3f817949a6123 |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c626t-4d74fd22c6b779571f9ea27181c7eead557f6c54706834dabae3f817949a6123 |
container_end_page | 1239 |
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 1239 |
container_title | BMC public health |
container_volume | 18 |
creator | Barke, Antonia Korwisi, Beatrice Casser, Hans-Raimund Fors, Egil A Geber, Christian Schug, Stephan A Stubhaug, Audun Ushida, Takahiro Wetterling, Thomas Rief, Winfried Treede, Rolf-Detlef |
description | A task force of the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) has developed a classification of chronic pain for the ICD-11 consisting of seven major categories. The objective was to test whether the proposed categories were exhaustive and mutually exclusive. In addition, the perceived utility of the diagnoses and the raters' subjective diagnostic certainty were to be assessed.
Five independent pain centers in three continents coded 507 consecutive patients. The raters received the definitions for the main diagnostic categories of the proposed classification and were asked to allocate diagnostic categories to each patient. In addition, they were asked to indicate how useful they judged the diagnosis to be from 0 (not at all) to 3 (completely) and how confident they were in their category allocation.
The two largest groups of patients were coded as either chronic primary pain or chronic secondary musculoskeletal pain. Of the 507 patients coded, 3.0% had chronic pain not fitting any of the proposed categories (97% exhaustiveness), 20.1% received more than one diagnosis. After adjusting for double coding due to technical reasons, 2.0% of cases remained (98% uniqueness). The mean perceived utility was 1.9 ± 1.0, the mean diagnostic confidence was 2.0 ± 1.0.
The categories proved exhaustive with few cases being classified as unspecified chronic pain, and they showed themselves to be mutually exclusive. The categories were regarded as useful with particularly high ratings for the newly introduced categories (chronic cancer-related pain among others). The confidence in allocating the diagnoses was good although no training regarding the ICD-11 categories had been possible at this stage of the development. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1186/s12889-018-6135-9 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_doaj_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_78426fe100f44001aab81875ca9329d3</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A567963807</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_78426fe100f44001aab81875ca9329d3</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A567963807</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c626t-4d74fd22c6b779571f9ea27181c7eead557f6c54706834dabae3f817949a6123</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptkktv1DAUhSMEoqXwA9igSGzYpPj6bRZI1fAaqRIsurc8jp3xyBMPdlKJf4_TKaWDkBe2rs_57Ht1muY1oEsAyd8XwFKqDoHsOBDWqSfNOVABHaZMPn10PmtelLJDCIRk-HlzRhBFlCl63tgfIaap9cHFvp1cmcI4tMm309a1dpvTGGx7MGFsbTSlBB-smUIaW59yu1596gA-3GmzK3OcymJ1NsU0VGFsbeor72XzzJtY3Kv7_aK5-fL5ZvWtu_7-db26uu4sx3zqaC-o7zG2fCOEYgK8cgYLkGCFc6ZnTHhuGRWIS0J7szGOeAlCUWU4YHLRrI_YPpmdPuSwN_mXTibou0LKgzZ5CjY6LSTF3DtAyFNax2LMRoIUzBpFsOpJZX08sg7zZu9668Ypm3gCPb0Zw1YP6VZzjAlSrALe3QNy-jnXuep9KNbFaEaX5qIxkPplShRU6dt_pLs057FOalExhkRl_lUNpjYQRp_qu3aB6ivGheJEIlFVl_9R1dW7fbBpdD7U-okBjgabUynZ-YceAeklZPoYMl1DppeQaVU9bx4P58HxJ1XkN1J1yiQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2135507223</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Pilot field testing of the chronic pain classification for ICD-11: the results of ecological coding</title><source>Publicly Available Content (ProQuest)</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Barke, Antonia ; Korwisi, Beatrice ; Casser, Hans-Raimund ; Fors, Egil A ; Geber, Christian ; Schug, Stephan A ; Stubhaug, Audun ; Ushida, Takahiro ; Wetterling, Thomas ; Rief, Winfried ; Treede, Rolf-Detlef</creator><creatorcontrib>Barke, Antonia ; Korwisi, Beatrice ; Casser, Hans-Raimund ; Fors, Egil A ; Geber, Christian ; Schug, Stephan A ; Stubhaug, Audun ; Ushida, Takahiro ; Wetterling, Thomas ; Rief, Winfried ; Treede, Rolf-Detlef</creatorcontrib><description>A task force of the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) has developed a classification of chronic pain for the ICD-11 consisting of seven major categories. The objective was to test whether the proposed categories were exhaustive and mutually exclusive. In addition, the perceived utility of the diagnoses and the raters' subjective diagnostic certainty were to be assessed.
Five independent pain centers in three continents coded 507 consecutive patients. The raters received the definitions for the main diagnostic categories of the proposed classification and were asked to allocate diagnostic categories to each patient. In addition, they were asked to indicate how useful they judged the diagnosis to be from 0 (not at all) to 3 (completely) and how confident they were in their category allocation.
The two largest groups of patients were coded as either chronic primary pain or chronic secondary musculoskeletal pain. Of the 507 patients coded, 3.0% had chronic pain not fitting any of the proposed categories (97% exhaustiveness), 20.1% received more than one diagnosis. After adjusting for double coding due to technical reasons, 2.0% of cases remained (98% uniqueness). The mean perceived utility was 1.9 ± 1.0, the mean diagnostic confidence was 2.0 ± 1.0.
The categories proved exhaustive with few cases being classified as unspecified chronic pain, and they showed themselves to be mutually exclusive. The categories were regarded as useful with particularly high ratings for the newly introduced categories (chronic cancer-related pain among others). The confidence in allocating the diagnoses was good although no training regarding the ICD-11 categories had been possible at this stage of the development.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1471-2458</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1471-2458</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1186/s12889-018-6135-9</identifier><identifier>PMID: 30404594</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: BioMed Central Ltd</publisher><subject>Back pain ; Cancer ; Care and treatment ; Categories ; Chronic pain ; Chronic Pain - classification ; Chronic Pain - diagnosis ; Classification ; Clinical Coding ; Clinical utility ; Coding ; Developmental stages ; Diagnosis ; Diagnostic categories ; Diagnostic systems ; Ecological coding ; Ecological effects ; Field study ; Field testing ; Humans ; International Classification of Diseases ; Medical diagnosis ; Nosology ; Pain ; Patients ; Pilot Projects ; Primary care ; Psychiatry ; Public health ; Task forces</subject><ispartof>BMC public health, 2018-11, Vol.18 (1), p.1239-1239, Article 1239</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2018 BioMed Central Ltd.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2018. This work is licensed under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>The Author(s). 2018</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c626t-4d74fd22c6b779571f9ea27181c7eead557f6c54706834dabae3f817949a6123</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c626t-4d74fd22c6b779571f9ea27181c7eead557f6c54706834dabae3f817949a6123</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-6863-3213</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6223095/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2135507223?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,25752,27923,27924,37011,37012,44589,53790,53792</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30404594$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Barke, Antonia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Korwisi, Beatrice</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Casser, Hans-Raimund</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fors, Egil A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Geber, Christian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schug, Stephan A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stubhaug, Audun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ushida, Takahiro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wetterling, Thomas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rief, Winfried</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Treede, Rolf-Detlef</creatorcontrib><title>Pilot field testing of the chronic pain classification for ICD-11: the results of ecological coding</title><title>BMC public health</title><addtitle>BMC Public Health</addtitle><description>A task force of the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) has developed a classification of chronic pain for the ICD-11 consisting of seven major categories. The objective was to test whether the proposed categories were exhaustive and mutually exclusive. In addition, the perceived utility of the diagnoses and the raters' subjective diagnostic certainty were to be assessed.
Five independent pain centers in three continents coded 507 consecutive patients. The raters received the definitions for the main diagnostic categories of the proposed classification and were asked to allocate diagnostic categories to each patient. In addition, they were asked to indicate how useful they judged the diagnosis to be from 0 (not at all) to 3 (completely) and how confident they were in their category allocation.
The two largest groups of patients were coded as either chronic primary pain or chronic secondary musculoskeletal pain. Of the 507 patients coded, 3.0% had chronic pain not fitting any of the proposed categories (97% exhaustiveness), 20.1% received more than one diagnosis. After adjusting for double coding due to technical reasons, 2.0% of cases remained (98% uniqueness). The mean perceived utility was 1.9 ± 1.0, the mean diagnostic confidence was 2.0 ± 1.0.
The categories proved exhaustive with few cases being classified as unspecified chronic pain, and they showed themselves to be mutually exclusive. The categories were regarded as useful with particularly high ratings for the newly introduced categories (chronic cancer-related pain among others). The confidence in allocating the diagnoses was good although no training regarding the ICD-11 categories had been possible at this stage of the development.</description><subject>Back pain</subject><subject>Cancer</subject><subject>Care and treatment</subject><subject>Categories</subject><subject>Chronic pain</subject><subject>Chronic Pain - classification</subject><subject>Chronic Pain - diagnosis</subject><subject>Classification</subject><subject>Clinical Coding</subject><subject>Clinical utility</subject><subject>Coding</subject><subject>Developmental stages</subject><subject>Diagnosis</subject><subject>Diagnostic categories</subject><subject>Diagnostic systems</subject><subject>Ecological coding</subject><subject>Ecological effects</subject><subject>Field study</subject><subject>Field testing</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>International Classification of Diseases</subject><subject>Medical diagnosis</subject><subject>Nosology</subject><subject>Pain</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Pilot Projects</subject><subject>Primary care</subject><subject>Psychiatry</subject><subject>Public health</subject><subject>Task forces</subject><issn>1471-2458</issn><issn>1471-2458</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>PIMPY</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNptkktv1DAUhSMEoqXwA9igSGzYpPj6bRZI1fAaqRIsurc8jp3xyBMPdlKJf4_TKaWDkBe2rs_57Ht1muY1oEsAyd8XwFKqDoHsOBDWqSfNOVABHaZMPn10PmtelLJDCIRk-HlzRhBFlCl63tgfIaap9cHFvp1cmcI4tMm309a1dpvTGGx7MGFsbTSlBB-smUIaW59yu1596gA-3GmzK3OcymJ1NsU0VGFsbeor72XzzJtY3Kv7_aK5-fL5ZvWtu_7-db26uu4sx3zqaC-o7zG2fCOEYgK8cgYLkGCFc6ZnTHhuGRWIS0J7szGOeAlCUWU4YHLRrI_YPpmdPuSwN_mXTibou0LKgzZ5CjY6LSTF3DtAyFNax2LMRoIUzBpFsOpJZX08sg7zZu9668Ypm3gCPb0Zw1YP6VZzjAlSrALe3QNy-jnXuep9KNbFaEaX5qIxkPplShRU6dt_pLs057FOalExhkRl_lUNpjYQRp_qu3aB6ivGheJEIlFVl_9R1dW7fbBpdD7U-okBjgabUynZ-YceAeklZPoYMl1DppeQaVU9bx4P58HxJ1XkN1J1yiQ</recordid><startdate>20181107</startdate><enddate>20181107</enddate><creator>Barke, Antonia</creator><creator>Korwisi, Beatrice</creator><creator>Casser, Hans-Raimund</creator><creator>Fors, Egil A</creator><creator>Geber, Christian</creator><creator>Schug, Stephan A</creator><creator>Stubhaug, Audun</creator><creator>Ushida, Takahiro</creator><creator>Wetterling, Thomas</creator><creator>Rief, Winfried</creator><creator>Treede, Rolf-Detlef</creator><general>BioMed Central Ltd</general><general>BioMed Central</general><general>BMC</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7T2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AN0</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6863-3213</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20181107</creationdate><title>Pilot field testing of the chronic pain classification for ICD-11: the results of ecological coding</title><author>Barke, Antonia ; Korwisi, Beatrice ; Casser, Hans-Raimund ; Fors, Egil A ; Geber, Christian ; Schug, Stephan A ; Stubhaug, Audun ; Ushida, Takahiro ; Wetterling, Thomas ; Rief, Winfried ; Treede, Rolf-Detlef</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c626t-4d74fd22c6b779571f9ea27181c7eead557f6c54706834dabae3f817949a6123</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Back pain</topic><topic>Cancer</topic><topic>Care and treatment</topic><topic>Categories</topic><topic>Chronic pain</topic><topic>Chronic Pain - classification</topic><topic>Chronic Pain - diagnosis</topic><topic>Classification</topic><topic>Clinical Coding</topic><topic>Clinical utility</topic><topic>Coding</topic><topic>Developmental stages</topic><topic>Diagnosis</topic><topic>Diagnostic categories</topic><topic>Diagnostic systems</topic><topic>Ecological coding</topic><topic>Ecological effects</topic><topic>Field study</topic><topic>Field testing</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>International Classification of Diseases</topic><topic>Medical diagnosis</topic><topic>Nosology</topic><topic>Pain</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Pilot Projects</topic><topic>Primary care</topic><topic>Psychiatry</topic><topic>Public health</topic><topic>Task forces</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Barke, Antonia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Korwisi, Beatrice</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Casser, Hans-Raimund</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fors, Egil A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Geber, Christian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schug, Stephan A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stubhaug, Audun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ushida, Takahiro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wetterling, Thomas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rief, Winfried</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Treede, Rolf-Detlef</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health and Safety Science Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Complete (ProQuest Database)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Public Health Database (Proquest)</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>British Nursing Database</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>PML(ProQuest Medical Library)</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>BMC public health</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Barke, Antonia</au><au>Korwisi, Beatrice</au><au>Casser, Hans-Raimund</au><au>Fors, Egil A</au><au>Geber, Christian</au><au>Schug, Stephan A</au><au>Stubhaug, Audun</au><au>Ushida, Takahiro</au><au>Wetterling, Thomas</au><au>Rief, Winfried</au><au>Treede, Rolf-Detlef</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Pilot field testing of the chronic pain classification for ICD-11: the results of ecological coding</atitle><jtitle>BMC public health</jtitle><addtitle>BMC Public Health</addtitle><date>2018-11-07</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>18</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>1239</spage><epage>1239</epage><pages>1239-1239</pages><artnum>1239</artnum><issn>1471-2458</issn><eissn>1471-2458</eissn><abstract>A task force of the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) has developed a classification of chronic pain for the ICD-11 consisting of seven major categories. The objective was to test whether the proposed categories were exhaustive and mutually exclusive. In addition, the perceived utility of the diagnoses and the raters' subjective diagnostic certainty were to be assessed.
Five independent pain centers in three continents coded 507 consecutive patients. The raters received the definitions for the main diagnostic categories of the proposed classification and were asked to allocate diagnostic categories to each patient. In addition, they were asked to indicate how useful they judged the diagnosis to be from 0 (not at all) to 3 (completely) and how confident they were in their category allocation.
The two largest groups of patients were coded as either chronic primary pain or chronic secondary musculoskeletal pain. Of the 507 patients coded, 3.0% had chronic pain not fitting any of the proposed categories (97% exhaustiveness), 20.1% received more than one diagnosis. After adjusting for double coding due to technical reasons, 2.0% of cases remained (98% uniqueness). The mean perceived utility was 1.9 ± 1.0, the mean diagnostic confidence was 2.0 ± 1.0.
The categories proved exhaustive with few cases being classified as unspecified chronic pain, and they showed themselves to be mutually exclusive. The categories were regarded as useful with particularly high ratings for the newly introduced categories (chronic cancer-related pain among others). The confidence in allocating the diagnoses was good although no training regarding the ICD-11 categories had been possible at this stage of the development.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>BioMed Central Ltd</pub><pmid>30404594</pmid><doi>10.1186/s12889-018-6135-9</doi><tpages>1</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6863-3213</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1471-2458 |
ispartof | BMC public health, 2018-11, Vol.18 (1), p.1239-1239, Article 1239 |
issn | 1471-2458 1471-2458 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_78426fe100f44001aab81875ca9329d3 |
source | Publicly Available Content (ProQuest); PubMed Central |
subjects | Back pain Cancer Care and treatment Categories Chronic pain Chronic Pain - classification Chronic Pain - diagnosis Classification Clinical Coding Clinical utility Coding Developmental stages Diagnosis Diagnostic categories Diagnostic systems Ecological coding Ecological effects Field study Field testing Humans International Classification of Diseases Medical diagnosis Nosology Pain Patients Pilot Projects Primary care Psychiatry Public health Task forces |
title | Pilot field testing of the chronic pain classification for ICD-11: the results of ecological coding |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-13T05%3A42%3A06IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_doaj_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Pilot%20field%20testing%20of%20the%20chronic%20pain%20classification%20for%20ICD-11:%20the%20results%20of%20ecological%20coding&rft.jtitle=BMC%20public%20health&rft.au=Barke,%20Antonia&rft.date=2018-11-07&rft.volume=18&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=1239&rft.epage=1239&rft.pages=1239-1239&rft.artnum=1239&rft.issn=1471-2458&rft.eissn=1471-2458&rft_id=info:doi/10.1186/s12889-018-6135-9&rft_dat=%3Cgale_doaj_%3EA567963807%3C/gale_doaj_%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c626t-4d74fd22c6b779571f9ea27181c7eead557f6c54706834dabae3f817949a6123%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2135507223&rft_id=info:pmid/30404594&rft_galeid=A567963807&rfr_iscdi=true |