Cited by 161Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationWorkplace Health and Well-beingOccupational Health and Safety in Workplaces

The Impact and Burden of Chronic Pain in the Workplace: A Qualitative Systematic Review

Patel, Ajay S., Farquharson, Rachel, Carroll, Dawn, Moore, Andrew, Phillips, Ceri J., Taylor, Rod S., Barden, Jodie·2012·Pain Practice

Abstract

Background: Chronic pain (CP) poses a diverse and substantial burden for employees, employers, and society. The deleterious consequences of CP in the workplace are frequently underestimated. Objective: To estimate the burden of CP in the European workplace. Methods: A systematic review following PRISMA statement guidelines was conducted to identify studies reporting work‐related outcomes for people with CP. EMBASE, MEDLINE, EconLit, and Cochrane Library databases were searched up to 18th August 2010. Results: We identified 91 observational studies. Few were specifically designed to investigate the association between CP, productivity, and employment. The focus for this review was studies clearly reporting outcomes relating to the burden of CP on employment status ( n = 37), sickness absence (absenteeism, n = 47), and loss of productivity because of reduced ability at work (presenteeism, n = 8). Conclusion: The body of evidence identified from the systematic review indicates that CP has a substantial negative impact on work‐related outcomes, supporting the importance of interventions to reduce the burden of CP. Well‐designed prospective studies specifically assessing the direct consequences of CP on employment are needed to confirm these findings.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1533-2500.2012.00547.x

Cites

62 of 62 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
Patel, A. S., Farquharson, R., Carroll, D., Moore, A., Phillips, C. J., Taylor, R. S., & Barden, J.
Affiliations
  • Pfizer (United Kingdom) (GB)
  • Churchill Hospital (GB)
  • Swansea University (GB)
  • University of Exeter (GB)
Corresponding author
Patel, Ajay S.
Venue
Pain Practice
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-03-29
Volume
12
Issue
7
Pages
578-589
ISSN
  • 1530-7085 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-2500
OpenAlex
W2168153665
Cited by
161
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 1
FWCI
0.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Pain Practice (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Pfizer
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Workplace Health and Well-being
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Occupational Health and Safety in Workplaces
Keywords
chronic pain, workplace, employment status, sick leave, presenteeism, productivity loss, work-related outcomes, European workers
MeSH terms
Employment, Europe, Humans, Databases, Factual, Workplace, Sick Leave, Chronic Pain

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