Chronic Pain- Keyword Analysis

Topics/keywords: ‘chronic pain’

Data types: posts, comments, likes, polls

Geographical segment: global physicians, physicians by region

Analyzed data points on G-Med: 25,167

Specialties: Family Medicine, Oncology, Neurology, Palliative Care, Orthopedics, Rheumatology

Countries analyzed: 79

Reach: 256,121

Introduction

This report presents a comprehensive analysis of physician discussions on chronic pain, based on data sourced from the G-Med platform. Using keyword and sentiment analysis, the report identifies key concerns, clinical approaches to pain assessment and management, and cross-country differences. Sentiment polarity was calculated based on the language used in both posts and comments. All content has been standardized and analyzed across multiple languages with translations incorporated where relevant.

Main Concerns of G-Med Physicians on the Topic of Chronic Pain

1. Etiologies and Pain Types (25% of physician discussions)
Physicians discussed a wide range of chronic pain sources:

· Musculoskeletal pain (22%) was most prominent, including chronic back pain, disc degeneration, and osteoarthritis. Imaging debates and mechanical treatment strategies dominated these cases.

· Headaches and migraines (11%) formed a substantial cluster, with frequent commentary on prophylaxis, diagnostics, and medication overuse.

· Neuropathic pain (7%) generated posts focusing on nerve compression, post-herpetic neuralgia, and diabetic neuropathy.

· Fibromyalgia appeared in 5% of discussions, often framed around diagnostic ambiguity and skepticism from peers.

2. Diagnostic Imaging (20% of physician discussions)
Discussions frequently centered on MRI, CT, and X-ray use in identifying pain sources, especially for spinal and musculoskeletal disorders.

· 41 % were positive towards imaging as a useful tool in identifying pain etiology and pathology.

· 37% expressed negative sentiment, citing overuse, low clinical yield in chronic pain, or difficulty linking imaging findings to subjective symptoms.

· 22% were neutral or purely descriptive, presenting clinical cases or factual statements without clear positive or negative sentiment.

3. Opioid-Sparing Pharmacologic Strategies (15%)
This theme included both first-line therapies and adjunctive pharmacologics:

· NSAIDs and paracetamol were widely used, with physicians expressing positive sentiment on efficacy and safety, especially for milder pain syndromes.

· Gabapentin and pregabalin drew mixed views: 35% raised concerns about sedation, dependence, or overprescription. Still, some viewed them as useful adjuncts in neuropathic pain.

· Duloxetine and ketamine were occasionally mentioned as other alternatives, particularly in treatment-resistant cases.
While many physicians emphasized multimodal approaches, a minority promoted pharmacologic minimization entirely in favor of physical therapies.

4. Opioid Use and Agent-Specific Perspectives (12%)
A significant portion of posts addressed opioid prescribing, with nuanced discussions around formulation, safety, and agent-specific preference:

· Morphine and oxycodone were frequently cited but often flagged for high dependency potential.

· Fentanyl was discussed with the most caution—particularly in relation to overdose risks and stigma.

· Buprenorphine, especially in patch form, was seen more favorably for chronic management due to perceived lower abuse potential.

· Formulations such as transdermal patches were generally discussed as safer and more manageable than IV or oral forms.

Sentiment showed greater physician openness toward controlled-release patches and selective use in cancer or palliative contexts, while chronic non-cancer pain cases drew more skepticism.

5. Mental Health Integration (11%)
Depression and anxiety were commonly mentioned as factors that exacerbated pain or complicated its management.

· 33% highlighted the importance of integrated care models, including CBT and psychiatric support.

· 54% raised concerns over stigma, lack of access, or inadequate psychological evaluation.

· 13% were neutral or strictly clinical in tone.

6. Cannabinoids in Pain Management (5%)
Physicians discussed the clinical utility of cannabinoids, especially in countries with legal medical marijuana programs:

· Sentiment was divided: 52% expressed cautious optimism or positive experiences, 33% expressed skepticism or regulatory concern, and 15% were neutral or exploratory.

· Most mentions centered on adjunctive use, often in cases of refractory pain or intolerance to other medications.

· Some physicians raised questions about standardization, dosing, and long-term safety.

The debate reflected both regional differences in access and clinical uncertainty surrounding efficacy evidence.

Interested in a similar report for your field? Contact us here

Key Points on Assessment, Management, and Long-Term Care

Assessment (22% of physician discussions)

· Imaging as a Diagnostic Tool
Many physicians rely on MRI and CT to assess structural contributors to pain. However, concerns exist about over-reliance in cases of nonspecific pain.

· Neurological vs. Musculoskeletal Differentiation

Some discussions emphasized the importance of distinguishing between nerve-related and mechanical pain sources using nerve conduction tests or clinical exam findings.

· Use of Subjective Pain Scales

Very few discussions mentioned tools like the VAS or NRS, indicating a gap in consistent quantitative pain assessment documentation.

Management (29% of physician discussions)

· Opioid vs. Non-Opioid Pharmacotherapy

Discussions reveal a clear split between opioid users and advocates of alternatives (e.g., gabapentinoids, NSAIDs, cannabinoids).

· Multimodal and Non-Pharmacologic Approaches
Some discussions mentioned physiotherapy, acupuncture, and psychotherapy.

· Neuropathic Pain Challenges

Neuropathic pain generated concern due to poor response to standard treatments and diagnostic uncertainty.

Long-Term Care (13% of physician discussions)

· Chronicity and Relapse Management
Physicians frequently noted the difficulty in achieving lasting resolution and the need for ongoing reassessment. There was discussion on which healthcare professionals should be included in multidisciplinary care teams and how to best utilize them.

· Mental Health in Long-Term Care
Many discussions involving mental health expressed concern over inadequate psychological integration.

· Patient Follow-Up Practices
There were relatively few references to structured follow-up, with informal long-term care noted more often.

Geographical Analysis of Physician Discussions on Chronic Pain

Of the 79 countries analyzed, the following topics were discussed in prominent countries:

United States: Physicians showed polarized views on opioid therapy. There was also interest in non-opioid pharmacological alternatives such as cannabinoids. Some physicians emphasized patient quality of life and the challenges of balancing relief with dependency risks.
United Kingdom: Discussions focused more on integrating psychological support and structured pain pathways. There was a consistent emphasis on non-pharmacologic strategies such as cognitive behavioral therapy and physiotherapy.
Canada: Physicians highlighted interdisciplinary care and the use of non-opioid alternatives. Mental health comorbidities were frequently addressed in the context of treatment planning.
Germany: Discussions centered around musculoskeletal pain and imaging. German physicians frequently debated the utility of MRI and CT scans for guiding treatment decisions in back pain.
France: Physicians in France showed interest in multimodal treatment approaches and were cautious about long-term opioid use. Mental health management appeared more integrated into care discussions compared to other countries.
Italy: Discussions were largely pharmacologic, including analgesics and muscle relaxants. Some discussions emphasized the use of local injections and imaging to identify treatable structural lesions.
Spain: Physicians expressed concern over the limitations of standard treatments and showed interest in physiotherapy and spinal rehabilitation. Imaging use was also prevalent.
India: Indian physicians emphasized diagnostic challenges and voiced concern over limited access to advanced imaging or non-pharmacologic support services.
Brazil: Discussions showed strong engagement around opioid concerns, with many highlighting under-treatment or overregulation. Cannabis-based treatments were also frequently debated.

Cross-Country Differences

Pharmacologic-Dominant vs. Non-Pharmacologic-Dominant Management

This theme contrasts countries where discussions heavily emphasize pharmacological treatments versus those where non-drug approaches are more frequently discussed.

Pharmacologic-Dominant:
- The United States, Brazil, and Italy show a strong preference for pharmacological treatments, including opioids, gabapentin, and NSAIDs.
Non-Pharmacologic-Dominant:
- The United Kingdom and Canada prominently feature non-pharmacologic strategies such as physiotherapy, CBT, and psychological support. France also shows a trend toward holistic, psychosocial approaches to chronic pain management.

Supportive vs. Cautious Attitudes Toward Opioids

This theme explores physicians' expressed sentiment regarding the use of opioids in chronic pain treatment.

Supportive of Opioids:
- The United States and India have significant discussions supporting judicious opioid use, with emphasis on patient selection and controlled administration. Physicians in Australia and Canada also reflect a willingness to prescribe opioids under monitored conditions.
Cautious About Opioids:
- Germany, the United Kingdom, and France reflect more concern over opioid dependency, overuse, and long-term risks. Discussions from these regions often focus on alternative treatments and tighter prescribing controls.

Integrated vs. Limited Mental Health Integration

This theme compares how often psychological aspects of chronic pain are addressed across regions.

Integrated Mental Health:
- Canada, the United Kingdom, and Spain display the highest levels of mental health integration, with consistent references to anxiety, depression, and CBT. Discussions support a biopsychosocial model of chronic pain care.
Limited Mental Health Integration:
- France, India, and Brazil show minimal discussion of mental health support or psychological comorbidities. These discussions are often centered on physical pain and pharmacologic treatments, with little emphasis on psychosocial components.