Cited by 28Innovations in Medical EducationPain Management and Opioid UseMusculoskeletal Disorders and Rehabilitation

Pain Medicine: The Case for an Independent Medical Specialty and Training Programs

Open access
Dubois, Michel Y., Follett, Kenneth A.·2014·Academic Medicine

Abstract

Over the last 30 years, pain has become one of the most dynamic areas of medicine and a public health issue. According to a recent Institute of Medicine report, pain affects approximately 100 million Americans at an estimated annual economic cost of $560 to $635 billion and is poorly treated overall. The American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) recognizes a pain subspecialty, but pain care delivery has struggled with increasing demand and developed in an inconsistent and uncoordinated fashion. Pain education is insufficient and highly variable. Multiple pain professional organizations have led to fragmentation of the field and lack of interdisciplinary agreement, resulting in confusion regarding who speaks for pain medicine. In this Perspective, the authors argue that ABMS recognition of pain medicine as an independent medical specialty would provide much needed structure and oversight for the field and would generate credibility for the specialty and its providers among medical peers, payers, regulatory and legislative agencies, and the public at large. The existing system, managed by three ABMS boards, largely excludes other specialties that contribute to pain care, fails to provide leadership from a single professional organization, provides suboptimal training exposure to pain medicine, and lengthens training, which results in inefficient use of time and educational resources. The creation of a primary ABMS conjoint board in pain medicine with its own residency programs and departments would provide better coordinated training, ensure the highest degree of competence of pain medicine specialists, and improve the quality of pain care and patient safety.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/acm.0000000000000265

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dubois, M. Y., & Follett, K. A.
Affiliations
New York University (US)
Corresponding author
Dubois, Michel Y.
Venue
Academic Medicine
Published
2014-06
Volume
89
Issue
6
Pages
863-868
ISSN
1040-2446 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2318679303
Cited by
28
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 4
FWCI
1.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Academic Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Opioid Use
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Musculoskeletal Disorders and Rehabilitation
Keywords
pain medicine, American Board of Medical Specialties, pain education, residency training, professional associations, patient safety
MeSH terms
Certification, Clinical Competence, Delivery of Health Care, Education, Medical, Graduate, Humans, Internship and Residency, Medicine, Specialty Boards, United States, Chronic Pain, Pain Management

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