TY - JOUR
T1 - Outcome Assessment in Children and Adolescents With Chronic Pain
T2 - An International Clinical Practice Survey
AU - Miró, Jordi
AU - Sánchez-Rodríguez, Elisabet
AU - Jensen, Mark P.
AU - Liossi, Christina
AU - Lord, Susan M.
AU - Gobiņa, Inese
AU - Skidmore, Nathan
AU - O'Keeffe, Mary
AU - Walker, Susan M.
AU - de la Vega, Rocío
AU - Ingelmo, Pablo
AU - Koechlin, Helen
AU - Ståhl, Minna
AU - Stinson, Jennifer
AU - Wicksell, Rikard K.
AU - Finley, G. Allen
AU - Cebrecos, Jesús
AU - Goubert, Liesbet
AU - Reinoso-Barbero, Francisco
AU - Rosenberger, Daniela C.
AU - Pogatzki-Zahn, Esther M.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2026 The Author(s). European Journal of Pain published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Pain Federation - EFIC ®.
PY - 2026/1
Y1 - 2026/1
N2 - Background: Effective treatment of paediatric chronic pain requires a robust and comprehensive set of outcome assessment tools to evaluate treatment effectiveness. Although a core outcome set (COS) exists for clinical trials, its practicability and appropriateness for clinical practice is currently unknown. This cross-sectional study led by the IN-ChildPain group aimed to: (1) identify clinical outcome domains and measures used by clinicians treating children and adolescents with chronic pain, (2) determine which domains are considered mandatory in clinical routine and (3) compare prioritisation across disciplines and countries. Methods: An online survey, available in eight languages, was conducted eliciting data from clinicians who treat children and adolescents with chronic pain. Percentages of the most commonly used outcomes were calculated, and z-tests were performed to compare study variables based on participants' country income status and professional background. Results: A total of 193 clinicians from 42 countries participated. The most commonly assessed domains were pain intensity (84%), pain interference (80%) and physical functioning (79%), with higher assessment rates in high-income countries. Pain intensity and interference were deemed mandatory by 93% of participants, followed by physical functioning (92%). However, only 53% reported using patient-reported outcome measures, with the 0–10 Numeric Rating Scale being the most common (94%). Assessment practices varied as a function of country income level and professional background. Conclusions: The findings highlight the need to develop and implement a COS tailored to the needs and resources of clinicians. Such standardisation would enhance consistency in assessment, enable cross-site benchmarking and promote equitable pain care globally. Significance: This study provides critical insights into how clinicians assess paediatric chronic pain, highlighting significant global disparities and professional differences in outcome domain prioritisation. By identifying commonly assessed domains, these findings emphasise the need for standardised measures and pave the way for developing a core outcome set tailored to clinical activities. Such an advance is essential for improving the consistency and quality of care for children and adolescents with chronic pain worldwide.
AB - Background: Effective treatment of paediatric chronic pain requires a robust and comprehensive set of outcome assessment tools to evaluate treatment effectiveness. Although a core outcome set (COS) exists for clinical trials, its practicability and appropriateness for clinical practice is currently unknown. This cross-sectional study led by the IN-ChildPain group aimed to: (1) identify clinical outcome domains and measures used by clinicians treating children and adolescents with chronic pain, (2) determine which domains are considered mandatory in clinical routine and (3) compare prioritisation across disciplines and countries. Methods: An online survey, available in eight languages, was conducted eliciting data from clinicians who treat children and adolescents with chronic pain. Percentages of the most commonly used outcomes were calculated, and z-tests were performed to compare study variables based on participants' country income status and professional background. Results: A total of 193 clinicians from 42 countries participated. The most commonly assessed domains were pain intensity (84%), pain interference (80%) and physical functioning (79%), with higher assessment rates in high-income countries. Pain intensity and interference were deemed mandatory by 93% of participants, followed by physical functioning (92%). However, only 53% reported using patient-reported outcome measures, with the 0–10 Numeric Rating Scale being the most common (94%). Assessment practices varied as a function of country income level and professional background. Conclusions: The findings highlight the need to develop and implement a COS tailored to the needs and resources of clinicians. Such standardisation would enhance consistency in assessment, enable cross-site benchmarking and promote equitable pain care globally. Significance: This study provides critical insights into how clinicians assess paediatric chronic pain, highlighting significant global disparities and professional differences in outcome domain prioritisation. By identifying commonly assessed domains, these findings emphasise the need for standardised measures and pave the way for developing a core outcome set tailored to clinical activities. Such an advance is essential for improving the consistency and quality of care for children and adolescents with chronic pain worldwide.
KW - chronic pain
KW - outcome assessment (health care)/standards
KW - paediatrics
KW - pain measurement
KW - patient reported outcome measures
KW - surveys and questionnaires
KW - Cross-Sectional Studies
KW - Pain Management/methods
KW - Humans
KW - Male
KW - Chronic Pain/therapy
KW - Adolescent
KW - Female
KW - Surveys and Questionnaires
KW - Outcome Assessment, Health Care/methods
KW - Pain Measurement
KW - Child
KW - Patient Reported Outcome Measures
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105027706199
U2 - 10.1002/ejp.70216
DO - 10.1002/ejp.70216
M3 - Article
C2 - 41546599
AN - SCOPUS:105027706199
SN - 1090-3801
VL - 30
JO - European Journal of Pain
JF - European Journal of Pain
IS - 1
M1 - e70216
ER -