Cited by 156Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationMedicine, History, and PhilosophyPediatric Pain Management Techniques

Patients’ experiences of chronic non-malignant musculoskeletal pain: a qualitative systematic review

Open access
Toye, Francine, Seers, Kate, Allcock, Nick, Briggs, Michelle, Carr, Eloise, Andrews, JoyAnn, Barker, Karen·2013·British Journal of General Practice

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal (MSK) pain is one of the most predominant types of pain and accounts for a large portion of the primary care workload. AIM: To systematically review and integrate the findings of qualitative research to increase understanding of patients' experiences of chronic non-malignant MSK pain. DESIGN AND SETTING: Synthesis of qualitative research using meta-ethnography using six electronic databases up until February 2012 (Medline, Embase, Cinahl, Psychinfo, Amed and HMIC). METHOD: Databases were searched from their inception until February 2012, supplemented by hand-searching contents lists of specific journals for 2001-2011 and citation tracking. Full published reports of qualitative studies exploring adults' own experience of chronic non-malignant MSK pain were eligible for inclusion. RESULTS: Out of 24 992 titles, 676 abstracts, and 321 full texts were screened, 77 papers reporting 60 individual studies were included. A new concept of pain as an adversarial struggle emerged. This adversarial struggle was to: 1) affirm self; 2) reconstruct self in time; 3) construct an explanation for suffering; 4) negotiate the healthcare system; and 5) prove legitimacy. However, despite this struggle there is also a sense for some patients of 6) moving forward alongside pain. CONCLUSIONS: This review provides a theoretical underpinning for improving patient experience and facilitating a therapeutic collaborative partnership. A conceptual model is presented, which offers opportunities for improvement by involving patients, showing them their pain is understood, and forming the basis to help patients move forward alongside their pain.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3399/bjgp13x675412

Cites

117 of 117 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 119 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Sandelowski M, Barrosso J. Handbook for synthesising qualitative research. New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company, 2007.
  2. Campbell R, Pound P, Morgan M, et al. Evaluating meta-ethnography: systematic analysis and synthesis of qualitative research. Health Technol Assess 2011; 15(43): 1-164.
  3. Charmaz K. Constructing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2006.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Toye, F., Seers, K., Allcock, N., Briggs, M., Carr, E., Andrews, J., & Barker, K.
Affiliations
  • University of Warwick (GB)
  • Glasgow Caledonian University (GB)
  • Leeds Beckett University (GB)
  • University of Calgary (CA)
  • Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre (GB)
Venue
British Journal of General Practice
Published
2013-12
Volume
63
Issue
617
Pages
e829-e841
ISSN
  • 0960-1643 (ISSN-L)
  • 1478-5242
OpenAlex
W2091768352
Cited by
156
References
119
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 5
FWCI
0.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal of General Practice (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion)
  • ResearchOnline (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute for Health and Care Research (09/2001/09, PDA/01/05/010)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Medicine, History, and Philosophy
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pediatric Pain Management Techniques
Keywords
patient experience, self-affirmation, pain coping, legitimacy, patient-provider partnership, conceptual model, primary care
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Middle Aged, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Self Concept, Stress, Psychological, Qualitative Research, Young Adult, Chronic Pain, Musculoskeletal 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