title: The international CHANGE PAIN physician survey: does specialism influence the perception of pain and its treatment?
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  This survey explores how physicians perceive chronic non-cancer pain, and examines their opinions on current treatment options.
  
  
  METHODS
  The computer-based survey comprises a questionnaire that is completed by physicians, mostly at professional conferences and congresses, but also online. The focus is on pain specialists, primary care physicians and other specialists (such as neurologists and rheumatologists), to discover any differences in their approach to treating chronic non-cancer pain.
  
  
  RESULTS
  No common understanding existed of where severe pain starts on an 11-point Numeric Rating Scale. Overall, two-thirds of respondents aim for treatment to reduce pain intensity to an NRS score of 2-4, with primary care physicians tending to aim for lower scores. All three groups considered reduction of pain to be the most important treatment goal, followed by quality of life. Asked to rank the most important factors when choosing an analgesic agent to treat severe, chronic non-cancer pain, respondents ranked efficacy first, tolerability second, and quality of life third. In each rank, more primary care physicians chose these options than in the specialist groups. More pain specialists used classical strong opioids often or very often - and for longer - than did physicians in the other two groups. Nausea/vomiting, bowel dysfunction and somnolence were ranked the first, second and third main reasons, respectively, for treatment failure with these agents. Over 90% of respondents used combination treatment rather than monotherapy to treat severe, chronic pain, but no fewer than 176 different combinations were cited.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Pain reduction and improvement in quality of life are the most important treatment goals. Wide variation in treatment indicates that no single drug is particularly good for managing chronic pain, and suggests that current treatment is not evidence-based. Differences between the groups imply that first-line treatment is more cautious and conventional. The key limitations of this survey include its small sample size, informal implementation and lack of detail regarding the respondents surveyed.
authors.affiliation: Teramo ASL, Teramo, Italy
authors.forename: G
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Varrassi
authors.forename: G H H
authors.initials: GH
authors.lastname: Müller-Schwefe
mesh_terms: D000700:Analgesics / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D000701:Analgesics, Opioid / Q000627:therapeutic use; D001291:Attitude of Health Personnel; D059350:Chronic Pain / Q000188:drug therapy*; D003625:Data Collection; D005060:Europe; D006801:Humans; D010147:Pain Measurement; D010820:Physicians; D055553:Prescription Drugs; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires
chemical_list: D000700:Analgesics; D000701:Analgesics, Opioid; D055553:Prescription Drugs