Cited by 384Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationPain Mechanisms and TreatmentsChronic Disease Management Strategies

The course of chronic pain in the community: Results of a 4-year follow-up study

Elliott, A. M., Smith, B. H., Hannaford, P. C., Smith, W. C., Chambers, W. A.·2002·Pain

Abstract

Little is known about the course of chronic pain in the community. Such information is needed for the prevention and management of chronic pain. We undertook a 4-year follow-up study of 2184 individuals living in Grampian, UK to describe patterns and predictors of change in chronic pain over time. In October 2000, participants completed a postal questionnaire including case definition questions, the chronic pain grade questionnaire, the SF-36 and socio-demographic questions. Information from this questionnaire was compared to information collected from a similar questionnaire in 1996. A response rate of 83% was achieved for the follow-up study. The overall prevalence of chronic pain (pain or discomfort present either all the time or on and off for 3 months or longer) increased from 45.5% at baseline to 53.8% at follow-up. Seventy-nine percent of those with chronic pain at baseline still had it at follow-up. The average annual incidence was 8.3% and the average annual recovery rate was 5.4%. Individuals in the study samples who are in lowest quartile of SF-36 domains--physical functioning, social functioning and bodily pain at baseline--were more likely to develop chronic pain at follow-up, and respondents who were retired were less likely to develop chronic pain. Individuals in the study samples in the lowest quartile of SF-36 domains, bodily pain and general health at baseline, were less likely to recover from their chronic pain, as were those aged 45-74 compared with those…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0304-3959(02)00138-0

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Elliott, A. M., Smith, B. H., Hannaford, P. C., Smith, W. C., & Chambers, W. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Aberdeen (GB)
  • NHS Grampian (GB)
Corresponding author
Elliott, A. M.
Venue
Pain
Published
2002-09
Volume
99
Issue
1
Pages
299-307
ISSN
0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1975688428
Cited by
384
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 22 · 2012: 24
FWCI
9.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Pain (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Discovery Research Portal (University of Dundee) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Association of Anaesthetists
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Pain Mechanisms and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Chronic Disease Management Strategies
Keywords
chronic pain, pain incidence, pain recovery, prevalence, SF-36, physical function, social functioning, bodily pain, retirement, age
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Chronic Disease, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pain, Predictive Value of Tests, Residence Characteristics, Scotland, Severity of Illness Index, Incidence, Prevalence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review