What is the impact of long-term COVID-19 on workers in healthcare settings? A rapid systematic review of current evidence.

BACKGROUND: Long COVID is a devastating, long-term, debilitating illness which disproportionately affects healthcare workers, due to the nature of their work. There is currently limited evidence specific to healthcare workers about the experience of living with Long COVID, or its prevalence, pattern of recovery or impact on healthcare. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to assess the effects of Long COVID among healthcare workers and its impact on health status, working lives, personal circumstances, and use of health service resources. METHODS: We conducted a systematic rapid review according to current methodological standards and reported it in adherence to the PRISMA 2020 and ENTREQ statements. RESULTS: We searched relevant electronic databases and identified 3770 articles of which two studies providing qualitative evidence and 28 survey studies providing quantitative evidence were eligible. Thematic analysis of the two qualitative studies identified five themes: uncertainty about symptoms, difficulty accessing services, importance of being listened to and supported, patient versus professional identity and suggestions to improve communication and services for people with Long COVID. Common long-term symptoms in the survey studies included fatigue, headache, loss of taste and/or smell, breathlessness, dyspnoea, difficulty concentrating, depression and anxiety. CONCLUSION: Healthcare workers struggled with their dual identity (patient/doctor) and felt dismissed or not taken seriously by their doctors. Our findings are in line with those in the literature showing that there are barriers to healthcare professionals accessing healthcare and highlighting the challenges of receiving care due to their professional role. A more representative approach in Long COVID research is needed to reflect the diverse nature of healthcare staff and their occupations. This rapid review was conducted using robust methods with the codicil that the pace of research into Long COVID may mean relevant evidence was not identified.

Is age discrimination a risk factor for frailty progression and frailty development among older adults? A prospective cohort analysis of the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing.

BACKGROUND: With the increasing global burden of frailty on healthcare resources, it is important to understand the modifiable risk factors of frailty. This study examined perceived age discrimination as a potential risk factor for frailty progression and frailty development among older adults. METHODS: Prospective cohort study using data from Waves 5 to 9 of the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA). Data on perceived age discrimination was collected only in Wave 5 of ELSA and analysed as baseline data in this study. Frailty was defined using the Frailty Index (FI) scores (0 to 1), calculated using the multidimensional deficits (scores ≥ 0.25 were considered frail). Binomial generalised estimating equation models (GEE) were fitted in R studio using perceived age discrimination as the main predictor with age, gender, long-standing illness, cognition, subjective social status status (SSS) and psychological wellbeing as covariates. Odd ratios were reported with 95 % confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: A total sample of 2,385 ELSA participants were included in the analysis. 55.8 % (n = 1312) were female, mean age 71.9 (SD ± 5.27) years and baseline frailty prevalence was 12.1 % (n = 288). Perceived age discrimination was reported by 38.4 % (n = 916) of the participants. Both frailty progression (OR 1.50, CI [1.26- 1.70]) and frailty development (OR 1.39, CI [1.14-1.62]) were significantly associated with perceived age discrimination in the fully adjusted models. Age (80+ years) (OR 3.72, CI [2.84-4.86]) and long-standing illness (OR 5.45, CI [4.43-6.67]) had the strongest association with respondents' frailty progression. CONCLUSION: Perceived age discrimination significantly increased the risk of frailty progression and frailty development among ELSA participants.

Assessing the impact of a national clinical guideline for the management of chronic pain on opioid prescribing rates: a controlled interrupted time series analysis.

BACKGROUND: Opioids can be effective analgesics, but long-term use may be associated with harms. In 2013, the first national, comprehensive, evidence-based pain management guideline was published, from the Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline Network (SIGN 136: Management of Chronic Pain) with key recommendations on analgesic prescribing. This study aimed to examine the potential impact on national opioid prescribing rates in Scotland. METHODS: Trends in national and regional community opioid prescribing data for Scotland were analysed from quarter one (Q1) 2005 to Q2 2020. Interrupted time series regression examined the association of SIGN 136 publication with prescribing rates for opioid-containing drugs. Gabapentinoid prescribing was used as a comparison drug. RESULTS: After a positive prescribing trend pre-publication, the timing of SIGN 136 publication was associated with a negative change in the trend of opioid prescribing rates (-2.82 items per 1000 population per quarter [PTPPQ]; P < 0.01). By Q2 2020, the relative reduction in the opioid prescribing rate was -20.67% (95% CI: -23.61, -17.76). This persisted after correcting for gabapentinoid prescribing and was mainly driven by the reduction in weak opioids, whereas strong opioid prescribing rates continued to rise. Gabapentinoid prescribing showed a significant rise in level (8.00 items per 1000 population; P = 0.01) and trend (0.27 items PTPPQ; P = 0.01) following SIGN 136 publication. CONCLUSIONS: The publication of SIGN 136 was associated with a reduction in opioid prescribing rates. This suggests that changes in clinical policy through evidence-based national clinical guidelines may affect community opioid prescribing, though this may be partially replaced by gabapentinoids, and other factors may also contribute.

Abdominal cancer symptoms: Evaluation of the impact of a regional public awareness campaign.

OBJECTIVE: A regional 'Be Clear on Cancer' (BCoC) campaign developed by Public Health England aimed to promote public awareness of key abdominal cancer symptoms in people aged 50 years and over. METHODS: Data were analysed for metrics at different stages in the patient care pathway including public awareness, GP attendance and referrals, to cancer diagnosis. RESULTS: There was significantly higher recognition of the BCoC abdominal campaign in the campaign region compared to the control area (Post Campaign/Control, n = 401/406; 35% vs. 24%, p < 0.05). The campaign significantly improved knowledge of 'bloating' as a symptom (p = 0.03) compared to pre-campaign levels. GP attendances for abdominal symptoms increased significantly by 5.8% (p = 0. 03), although the actual increase per practice was small (average 16.8 visits per week in 2016 to 17.7 in 2017). Urgent GP referrals for suspected abdominal cancer increased by 7.6%, compared to a non-significant change (0.05%) in the control area. For specific abdominal cancers, the number diagnosed were similar to or higher than the median in the campaign area but not in the control area in people aged 50 and over: colorectal (additional n = 61 cancers), pancreatic (additional n = 102) and stomach cancers (additional n = 17). CONCLUSIONS: This campaign had a modest impact on public awareness of abdominal cancer symptoms, GP attendances and cancers diagnosed.

Trends in gabapentinoid prescribing, co-prescribing of opioids and benzodiazepines, and associated deaths in Scotland.

BACKGROUND: Gabapentinoid drugs (gabapentin and pregabalin) are effective in neuropathic pain, which has a prevalence of ∼7%. Concerns about increased prescribing have implications for patient safety, misuse, and diversion. Drug-related deaths (DRDs) have increased and toxicology often implicates gabapentinoids. We studied national and regional prescribing rates (2006-2016) and identified associated sociodemographic factors, co-prescriptions and mortality, including DRDs. METHODS: National data from the Information Service Division, NHS Scotland were analysed for prescribing, sociodemographic, and mortality data from the Health Informatics Centre, University of Dundee. DRDs in which gabapentinoids were implicated were identified from National Records of Scotland and Tayside Drug Death Databases. RESULTS: From 2006 to 2016, the number of gabapentin prescriptions in Scotland increased 4-fold (164 630 to 694 293), and pregabalin 16-fold (27 094 to 435 490). In 2016 'recurrent users' (three or more prescriptions) had mean age 58.1 yr, were mostly females (62.5%), and were more likely to live in deprived areas. Of these, 60% were co-prescribed an opioid, benzodiazepine, or both (opioid 49.9%, benzodiazepine 26.8%, both 17.1%). The age-standardised death rate in those prescribed gabapentinoids was double that in the Scottish population (relative risk 2.16, 95% confidence interval 2.08-2.25). Increases in gabapentinoids contributing to cause of DRDs were reported regionally and nationally (gabapentin 23% vs 15%; pregabalin 21% vs 7%). In Tayside, gabapentinoids were implicated in 22 (39%) of DRDs, 17 (77%) of whom had not received a prescription. CONCLUSIONS: Gabapentinoid prescribing has increased dramatically since 2006, as have dangerous co-prescribing and death (including DRDs). Older people, women, and those living in deprived areas were particularly likely to receive prescriptions. Their contribution to DRDs may be more related to illegal use with diversion of prescribed medication.

Chronic pain, depression and cardiovascular disease linked through a shared genetic predisposition: Analysis of a family-based cohort and twin study.

BACKGROUND: Depression and chronic pain are the two most important causes of disability (Global Burden of Disease Study 2013). They occur together more frequently than expected and both conditions have been shown to be co-morbid with cardiovascular disease. Although shared socio-demographic risk factors (e.g. gender, deprivation) might explain the co-morbidity of these three conditions, we hypothesised that these three long-term, highly prevalent conditions co-occur and may be due to shared familial risk, and/or genetic factors. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We employed three different study designs in two independent cohorts, namely Generation Scotland and TwinsUK, having standardised, validated questionnaire data on the three traits of interest. First, we estimated the prevalence and co-occurrence of chronic pain, depression and angina among 24,024 participants of a population-based cohort of extended families (Generation Scotland: Scottish Family Health Study), adjusting for age, gender, education, smoking status, and deprivation. Secondly, we compared the odds of co-morbidity in sibling-pairs with the odds in unrelated individuals for the three conditions in the same cohort. Lastly, examination of similar traits in a sample of female twins (TwinsUK, n = 2,902), adjusting for age and BMI, allowed independent replication of the findings and exploration of the influence of additive genetic (A) factors and shared (C) and non-shared (E) environmental factors predisposing to co-occurring chronic widespread pain (CWP) and cardiovascular disease (hypertension, angina, stroke, heart attack, elevated cholesterol, angioplasty or bypass surgery). In the Generation Scotland cohort, individuals with depression were more than twice as likely to have chronic pain as those without depression (adjusted OR 2·64 [95% CI 2·34-2·97]); those with angina were four times more likely to have chronic pain (OR 4·19 [3·64-4·82]); those with depression were twice as likely to have angina (OR 2·20 [1·90-2·54]). Similar odds were obtained when the outcomes and predictors were reversed and similar effects seen among sibling pairs; depression in one sibling predicted chronic pain in the other (OR 1·34 [1·05-1·71]), angina predicted chronic pain in the other (OR 2·19 [1·63-2·95]), and depression, angina (OR 1·98 [1·49-2·65]). Individuals with chronic pain and angina showed almost four-fold greater odds of depression compared with those manifesting neither trait (OR 3·78 [2·99-4·78]); angina showed seven-fold increased odds in the presence of chronic pain and depression (OR 7·76 [6·05-9·95]) and chronic pain nine-fold in the presence of depression and angina (OR 9·43 [6·85-12·98]). In TwinsUK, the relationship between CWP and depression has been published (R = 0.34, p<0.01). Considering the CWP-cardiovascular relationship, the most suitable model to describe the observed data was a combination of A, C and E, with a small but significant genetic predisposition, shared between the two traits (2·2% [95% CI 0·06-0·23]). CONCLUSION: We found an increased co-occurrence of chronic pain, depression and cardiovascular disease in two independent cohorts (general population-based cohort, twins cohort) suggesting a shared genetic contribution. Adjustment for known environmental influences, particularly those relating to socio-economic status (Generation Scotland: age, gender, deprivation, smoking, education; Twins UK: age,BMI) did not explain the relationship observed between chronic pain, depression and cardiovascular disease. Our findings from two independent cohorts challenge the concept of traditional disease boundaries and warrant further investigation of shared biological mechanisms.

An Epidemiological Study of Neuropathic Pain Symptoms in Canadian Adults.

The reported prevalence of neuropathic pain ranges from 6.9% to 10%; however the only Canadian study reported 17.9%. The objective of this study was to describe the epidemiology of neuropathic pain in Canada. A cross-sectional survey was conducted in a random sample of Canadian adults. The response rate was 21.1% (1504/7134). Likely or possible neuropathic pain was defined using a neuropathic pain-related diagnosis and a positive outcome on the Self-Report Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs pain scale (S-LANSS) or the Douleur Neuropathique 4 (DN4) Questions. The prevalence of likely neuropathic pain was 1.9% (S-LANSS) and 3.4% (DN4) and that of possible neuropathic pain was 5.8% (S-LANSS) and 8.1% (DN4). Neuropathic pain was highest in economically disadvantaged males. There is a significant burden of neuropathic pain in Canada. The low response rate and a slightly older and less educated sample than the Canadian population may have led to an overestimate of neuropathic pain. Population prevalence varies by screening tool used, indicating more work is needed to develop reliable measures. Population level screening targeted towards high risk groups should improve the sensitivity and specificity of screening, while clinical examination of those with positive screening results will further refine the estimate of prevalence.

Identification and Management of Chronic Pain in Primary Care: a Review.

Chronic pain is a common, complex, and challenging condition, where understanding the biological, social, physical and psychological contexts is vital to successful outcomes in primary care. In managing chronic pain the focus is often on promoting rehabilitation and maximizing quality of life rather than achieving cure. Recent screening tools and brief intervention techniques can be effective in helping clinicians identify, stratify and manage both patients already living with chronic pain and those who are at risk of developing chronic pain from acute pain. Frequent assessment and re-assessment are key to ensuring treatment is appropriate and safe, as well as minimizing and addressing side effects. Primary care management should be holistic and evidence-based (where possible) and incorporates both pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches, including psychology, self-management, physiotherapy, peripheral nervous system stimulation, complementary therapies and comprehensive pain-management programmes. These may either be based wholly in primary care or supported by appropriate specialist referral.

A Genome-wide Association Study Provides Evidence of Sex-specific Involvement of Chr1p35.1 (ZSCAN20-TLR12P) and Chr8p23.1 (HMGB1P46) With Diabetic Neuropathic Pain.

Neuropathic pain is defined as pain arising as a direct consequence of a lesion or a disease affecting the somatosensory system and it affects around 1 in 4 diabetic patients in the UK. The purpose of this genome-wide association study (GWAS) was to identify genetic contributors to this disorder. Cases of neuropathic pain were defined as diabetic patients with a multiple prescription history of at least one of five drugs specifically indicated for the treatment of neuropathic pain. Controls were diabetic individuals who were not prescribed any of these drugs, nor amitriptyline, carbamazepine, or nortriptyline. Overall, 961 diabetic neuropathic pain cases and 3260 diabetic controls in the Genetics of Diabetes Audit and Research Tayside (GoDARTS) cohort were identified. We found a cluster in the Chr1p35.1 (ZSCAN20-TLR12P) with a lowest P value of 2.74 × 10(- 7) at rs71647933 in females and a cluster in the Chr8p23.1, next to HMGB1P46 with a lowest P value of 8.02 × 10(- 7) at rs6986153 in males. Sex-specific narrow sense heritability was higher in males (30.0%) than in females (14.7%). This GWAS on diabetic neuropathic pain provides evidence for the sex-specific involvement of Chr1p35.1 (ZSCAN20-TLR12P) and Chr8p23.1 (HMGB1P46) with the disorder, indicating the need for further research.

Estimating the burden of disease in chronic pain with and without neuropathic characteristics: does the choice between the EQ-5D and SF-6D matter?

The EQ-5D and Short Form (SF)12 are widely used generic health-related quality of life (HRQoL) questionnaires. They can be used to derive health utility index scores, on a scale where 0 is equivalent to death and 1 represents full health, with scores less than zero representing states "worse than death." We compared EQ-5D or SF-6D health utility index scores in patients with no chronic pain, and chronic pain with and without neuropathic characteristics (NC), and to explore their discriminant ability for pain severity. Self-reported health and chronic pain status was collected as part of a UK general population survey (n=4451). We found moderate agreement between individual dimensions of EQ-5D and SF-6D, with most highly correlated dimensions found for mental health and anxiety/depression, role limitations and usual activities, and pain and pain/discomfort. Overall 43% reported full health on the EQ-5D, compared with only 4.2% on the SF-6D. There were significant differences in mean utilities for chronic pain with NC (EQ-5D 0.47 vs SF-6D 0.62) and especially for severe pain (EQ-5D 0.33 vs SF-6D 0.58). On the EQ-5D, 17% of those with chronic pain with NC and 3% without NC scored "worse than death," a state which is not possible using the SF-6D. Health utilities derived from EQ-5D and SF-12/36 can discriminate between group differences for chronic pain with and without NC and greater pain severity. However, the instruments generate widely differing HRQoL scores for the same patient groups. The choice between using the EQ-5D or SF-6D matters greatly when estimating the burden of disease.

What do we mean by "older adults' persistent pain self-management"? A concept analysis.

BACKGROUND: No standard definition exists for the concept "persistent pain self-management" or how it should be defined in relation to older adults. Poorly defined concepts can result in misunderstandings in the clinical setting and can hinder research through difficulties identifying or measuring the concept. OBJECTIVE: To ascertain attributes, referents, antecedents, and consequences of the concept older adults' persistent pain self-management and develop a theoretical definition. DESIGN: Rodgers evolutionary model of concept analysis was used to systematically analyze articles from the academic and grey literature (N = 45). Data were extracted using standardized extraction forms and analyzed using thematic analysis. FINDINGS: This concept was discussed in three ways: as an intervention, in reference to everyday behaviors, and as an outcome. Five defining attributes were identified: multidimensional process, personal development, active individuals, symptom response, and symptom control. Patients' perceived need and ability to manage pain with support from others is necessary for pain self-management to occur. Numerous physical, psychological, and social health consequences were identified. A theoretical definition is discussed. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings have clarified existing use and understanding regarding the concept of older adults' persistent pain self-management. We have identified three areas for future development: refinement of the attributes of this concept within the context of older adults, an exploration of how providers can overcome difficulties supporting older adults' persistent pain self-management, and a clarification of the overall theoretical framework of older adults' persistent pain self-management.

Neuropathic pain in the community: more under-treated than refractory?

Best current estimates of neuropathic pain prevalence come from studies using screening tools detecting pain with probable neuropathic features; the proportion experiencing significant, long-term neuropathic pain, and the proportion not responding to standard treatment are unknown. These "refractory" cases are the most clinically important to detect, being the most severe, requiring specialist treatment. The aim of this study was to estimate the proportion of neuropathic pain in the population that is "refractory," and to quantify associated clinical and demographic features. We posted self-administered questionnaires to 10,000 adult patients randomly selected from 10 general practitioner practices in 5 UK locations. The questionnaire contained chronic pain identification and severity questions, cause of pain, SF-12, EQ-5D, S-LANSS (Self-administered Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Signs and Symptoms), PSEQ (Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire), use of neuropathic pain medications, and health care utilisation. These data were combined to determine the presence and characteristics of "refractory" neuropathic pain according to the defining features identified by a Delphi survey of international experts. Graded categories of chronic pain with and without neuropathic characteristics were generated, incorporating the refractory criteria. Completed questionnaires were returned by 4451 individuals (response rate 47%); 399 had "chronic pain with neuropathic characteristics" (S-LANSS positive, 8.9% of the study sample); 215 (53.9%) also reported a positive relevant history ("Possible neuropathic pain"); and 98 (4.5% of all Chronic Pain) also reported an "adequate" trial of at least one neuropathic pain drug ("Treated possible neuropathic pain"). The most refractory cases were associated with dramatically poorer physical and mental health, lower pain self-efficacy, higher pain intensity and pain-related disability, and greater health care service use.

Chronic pain epidemiology - where do lifestyle factors fit in?

Chronic pain is common and complex and has a large impact on individuals and society. Good epidemiological pain data provide key information on the use of resources (both in general practice and in specialist clinics), insight into factors that lead to or favour chronicity and the design of interventions aimed at reducing or preventing the effects of chronic pain. This review aims to highlight the important factors associated with chronic pain, including those factors which are amenable to lifestyle intervention.

Towards a definition of refractory neuropathic pain for epidemiological research. An international Delphi survey of experts.

BACKGROUND: Best current estimates of neuropathic pain (NeuP) prevalence come from studies using various screening detecting pain with probable neuropathic features; the proportion experiencing significant, long-term NeuP, and the proportion not responding to standard treatment are unknown. These "refractory" cases are the most clinically important to detect, being the most severe, requiring specialist treatment. METHODS: We report an international Delphi survey of experts in NeuP, aiming for consensus on the features required to define, for epidemiological research: (1) neuropathic pain; and (2) when NeuP is "refractory". A web-based questionnaire was developed and data collected from three rounds of questionnaires from nineteen experts. RESULTS: There was good consensus on essential inclusion of six items to identify NeuP ("prickling, tingling, pins & needles", "pain evoked by light touch", "electric shocks or shooting pain", "hot or burning" pain, "brush allodynia on self-examination", and "relevant history") and on some items that were non-essential. Consensus was also reached on components of a "refractory NeuP" definition: minimum duration (one year); number of trials of drugs of known effectiveness (four); adequate duration of these trials (three months / maximum tolerated); outcomes of treatment (pain severity, quality of life). Further work needs to validate these proposed criteria in general population research. CONCLUSIONS: This paper presents an international consensus on measuring the epidemiology of refractory neuropathic pain. This will be valuable in reaching an agreed estimate of the prevalence of neuropathic pain, and the first estimate of refractory neuropathic pain prevalence.

Epidemiology of neuropathic pain and its impact on quality of life.

Epidemiology is an important clinical tool in designing and evaluating management and prevention strategies, and is particularly relevant to neuropathic pain. However, there is a relative lack of accurate information available. In one sense, neuropathic pain describes a symptom or a mechanism, rather than a specific disease; on the other hand, there are sufficient similarities in the effects and response to treatment between different causes to make it worthwhile to consider neuropathic pain as a distinct condition. However, there are important specific disease-based factors that need to be considered separately. Estimates of prevalence that are based on specific causes of neuropathic pain tend to be lower (1-2%) than those that are based on reports of the classic symptoms (6-8%), and further methodological research is needed. All neuropathic pain is associated with poor general health, comparable with other severe chronic diseases. The importance of newly proposed risk factors, including genetic factors, still needs to be assessed at a population level.

Assessment and management of neuropathic pain in primary care.

SUMMARY Most patients with neuropathic pain present and are managed in primary care. It is generally a long-term condition associated with poor physical, psychological and social health. Assessment and pharmacological treatment algorithms, specifically designed for primary care, are now available. The focus should be on taking a good medical history and clinical examination, and with the knowledge of the patient's current and past medical history, the general practitioner can diagnose possible neuropathic pain and initiate treatment while awaiting specialist assessment (if required). Specific nonpharmaceutical interventions, though popular with patients, have thus far demonstrated limited effectiveness. General practitioners, with their long-term relationship with patients, have a central role in improving the diagnosis and management of neuropathic pain.

Is there evidence for aetiologically distinct subgroups of idiopathic congenital talipes equinovarus? A case-only study and pedigree analysis.

BACKGROUND: Idiopathic congenital talipes equinovarus (CTEV) is a common developmental foot disorder, the aetiology of which remains largely unknown. Some aspects of the epidemiology suggest the possibility of aetiologically distinct subgroups. Previous studies consider CTEV as a homogenous entity which may conceal risk factors in particular subgroups. We investigate evidence for aetiologically distinct subgroups of CTEV. METHODS: Parents of 785 probands completed a postal questionnaire. Family pedigrees were compiled by telephone. Case-only analysis was used to investigate interactions between risk factors and sex of the proband, CTEV laterality and CTEV family history. RESULTS: The male:female ratio was 2.3:1, 58% of probands were affected bilaterally and 11% had a first-second degree family history. There were modest interactions between family history and twin births (multivariate case - only odds ratio [ORca] = 3.87, 95%CI 1.19-12.62) and family history and maternal use of folic acid supplements in early pregnancy (ORca = 0.62, 95%CI 0.38-1.01); and between sex of the proband and maternal alcohol consumption during pregnancy (female, positive history and alcohol consumed: ORca = 0.33, 95%CI 0.12-0.89). Previous reports of an interaction between maternal smoking and family history were not confirmed. Relatives of female probands were affected more often than relatives of male probands. CONCLUSIONS: These results provide tentative evidence for aetiologically distinct CTEV subgroups. They support the 'Carter effect', suggesting CTEV develops though a multifactorial threshold model with females requiring a higher risk factor 'load', and suggest areas where future aetiological investigation might focus. Large multi-centre studies are needed to further advance understanding of this common condition.

Management of chronic pain in primary care.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To examine recent and current evidence available to guide the management of chronic pain in primary care. RECENT FINDINGS: The growing profile of chronic pain has facilitated some important consensus and guideline statements. Pharmacological management, based on available evidence and consensus, is essential in managing chronic pain in primary care, as part of a holistic approach, and with regular review. Studies of primary care management of chronic pain face considerable challenges, with assessment and interventions that are complex, and involving multidisciplinary approaches. Recent research evidence points to the effectiveness and feasibility of multidisciplinary interventions, with appropriate assessment and training. Specifically, a self-management programme, 'collaborative care', a cognitive-behavioural approach, and the Alexander technique show evidence of effectiveness in primary care, the latter two also proving cost-effective. SUMMARY: Most chronic pain presents and is managed in primary care; yet, most evidence for its management is difficult to apply in the primary care setting. Despite growing evidence for the management of chronic pain generally, management in primary care must be largely guided by consensus, experience, and judicious extrapolation from research in other contexts or conditions. A need for increased and on-going education and resources is apparent, as is the need for more research based in primary care.