Skip to main content
Download PDF

Opportunities and barriers for telemedicine in pain management: insights from a SIAARTI survey among Italian pain physicians

Journal of Anesthesia, Analgesia and Critical Care volume 4, Article number: 64 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

The integration of telemedicine in pain management represents a significant advancement in healthcare delivery, offering opportunities to enhance patient access to specialized care, improve satisfaction, and streamline chronic pain management. Despite its growing adoption, there remains a lack of comprehensive data on its utilization in pain therapy, necessitating a deeper understanding of physicians’ perspectives, experiences, and challenges.

Methods

A survey was conducted in Italy between January 2024 and May 2024. Specialist center members of the SIAARTI were sent an online questionnaire testing the state of the art of telemedicine for pain medicine.

Results

One-hundred thirty-one centers across Italy reveal varied adoption rates, with 40% routinely using telemedicine. Regional disparities exist, with Northern Italy showing higher adoption rates. Barriers include the absence of protocols, resource constraints, and bureaucratic obstacles. Despite challenges, telemedicine has shown positive impacts on service delivery, with increased service volume reported. Technological capabilities, including image sharing and teleconsultation with specialists, indicate promising interdisciplinary potential.

Conclusions

The integration of advanced telemedicine software utilizing artificial intelligence holds promise for enhancing telemonitoring and alert systems, potentially leading to more proactive and personalized pain management strategies.

Background

The landscape of healthcare delivery has undergone a significant transformation with the implementation of telemedicine-based care pathways [1,2,3], even in the field of pain management [4,5,6]. Pieces of evidence suggest that telemedicine can offer the potential to enhance patient access to specialized care [7], improve patient satisfaction [8,9,10], and streamline the management of chronic pain [11]. Therefore, as the demand for effective pain management continues to rise, the integration of telemedicine into clinical practice has become increasingly relevant [12,13,14].

Nevertheless, despite its growing adoption, there remains a lack of comprehensive data on how telemedicine is being utilized by healthcare professionals specifically in pain therapy [15]. Consequently, understanding the perspectives, experiences, and challenges faced by physicians in implementing telemedicine for pain management is crucial for optimizing its use and addressing potential barriers.

This article presents the findings of a survey conducted by the Italian Society of Analgesia, Anesthesia, Resuscitation, and Intensive Care (SIAARTI) among pain physicians to assess the current usage, benefits, and limitations of telemedicine in pain management. The survey aimed to gather insights into physicians’ experiences, satisfaction levels, perceived effectiveness, and the impact of telemedicine on patient care in the context of pain therapy. The results of this analysis could provide valuable information that can inform future strategies for the integration of telemedicine in pain management practices.

Methods

The survey was conducted across Italy between January 2024 and May 2024. All center members of the SIAARTI were asked to participate by an email invitation, which was sent to all directors of complex operative units, and by further advertising through the SIAARTI newsletter and its social media platforms. Participating centers were required to select one participant as representative physician of each given center for a computer-aided web interview (CAWI) using the free software SurveyMonkey. No specific exclusion/inclusion criteria were established as the scope of the survey is to provide an as-much-comprehensive-as possible overview of the Italian pain centers’ scenario about telemedicine for pain medicine. Answers were collected on an anonymous basis. A data clean procedure was also performed to remove duplicate answers within the same center. The survey was organized by SIAARTI and conducted in compliance with the EphMRA code of conduct. All participants in the survey provided voluntary, informed consent to data collection and use, based upon a clear understanding of the purpose of the data collection.

Questionnaire and item assessment

The questionnaire comprised 33 questions addressing the following items: center organization, clinical activity, adoption of telemedicine, protocols for telemedicine, and clinical governance. This questionnaire was not an international and validated one, since it was created ad hoc for the Italian reality and with an exploratory intent.

Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics were employed to provide a comprehensive overview of the dataset. The primary focus was on calculating the absolute and percentage frequencies for the variables under consideration. Absolute frequencies were used to count the occurrences of each category within the variables, providing a straightforward measure of distribution. Complementing this, percentage frequencies were calculated to offer a relative measure, thereby enabling easier comparison between different categories regardless of their size. This dual approach of utilizing both absolute and percentage frequencies facilitated a thorough understanding of the data distribution, revealing patterns and trends that are critical for further interpretation and discussion.

Results

A survey on the utilization of telemedicine in pain therapy was conducted, with responses collected from 131 centers across different Italian regions. From our previous cross-sectional analysis, we calculated that in Italy, there were 305 active pain centers; therefore, we have a 43.52% of respondents [16].

In Northern Italy (n = 62), the majority of centers are located in Lombardy (n = 24); in Central Italy (n = 31), most are in Lazio (n = 13); and in Southern Italy (n = 37), most centers are in Campania (n = 13) (Fig. 1) [17].

Fig. 1
figure 1

Regional distribution of responders to the survey

Full size image

Telemedicine for pain management

Telemedicine was routinely used in 40% of the responding centers (n = 38), mostly in Campania (n = 6), Lombardy (n = 5), Lazio (n = 5), and Piedmont (n = 5) (Fig. 2). In 61.2% of cases, centers use telemedicine for various clinical purposes.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Regional distribution of telemedicine-based pain management centers

Full size image

Among the centers not yet implementing telemedicine, 9.3% are in the process of completing the necessary steps, 51.9% are planning to start, and 38.9% have no interest in starting telemedicine.

The reasons for not using telemedicine include the absence of protocols (16.7%), lack of resources (44.4%), bureaucratic obstacles (25%), and other reasons (19%).

The timeline for starting telemedicine varied as 21.1% of the centers began before the COVID-19 pandemic, 36.8% during the pandemic, and 42.1% after the pandemic.

Telemedicine care pathway

Among the centers conducting telemedicine, 47.4% have a protocol for telemedicine use within the care pathway. The first visit was conducted in person in 85.9% of the centers. Patient selection criteria for telemedicine are absent in 28.9% of the centers, whereas 71.1% had established criteria. Additionally, 81.6% of the centers have criteria for returning patients to in-person visits.

In terms of operational aspects, 57.9% of the centers had scheduled days for telemedicine visits, with half of these having more than 1 day per week (27.8% 2 days a week, 22.2% more 3 or more days a week). The remaining 42.1% conducted telemedicine activities as needed.

The impact of telemedicine on pain therapy services showed an increase in overall services, with 39.5% of the centers reporting an increase of less than 10% and 5.3% reporting an increase of more than 50% (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Impact of telemedicine use on service delivery in pain medicine

Full size image

Technological capabilities were also assessed, with 72.8% of the centers able to share images such as computerized tomography (CT) and computerized tomography (MRI) scans between patients and doctors during teleconsultations. However, only 9.1% of the centers had telemedicine software that utilized artificial intelligence strategies (e.g., for telemonitoring and alert systems).

Teleconsultation capabilities were present in 39.4% of the centers, with teleconsultations possible with neurologists, orthopedists, general practitioners, and other specialists (15.4% each).

Additionally, 33.6% of the centers conducted telemedicine for fragile patients (such as pediatric patients and those with cognitive disabilities), with 54.4% having a dedicated path for these patients.

Finally, 21.2% of the centers could connect hub/spoke centers through teleconsultation.

Discussion

The findings of this survey underscore the significant yet varied adoption of telemedicine in pain management across Italy. The data reveal a considerable shift towards integrating telemedicine into clinical practice, reflecting broader trends in healthcare delivery transformation driven by technological advancements and the exigencies imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic [18,19,20,21,22].

The survey highlighted that 40% of the responding centers are routinely using telemedicine for pain management, indicating a solid foothold for telemedicine in this domain. However, the regional disparities in adoption are noteworthy. Northern Italy, particularly Lombardy, shows a higher concentration of telemedicine adoption, which could be attributed to better infrastructure and resource availability [23, 24]. In contrast, the uptake in southern and central regions, while significant, appears more fragmented [16]. This disparity underscores the need for targeted strategies to address regional inequities and ensure a more uniform adoption of telemedicine services across the country [25,26,27].

Despite the promising integration of telemedicine, several barriers impede its broader adoption [2, 28, 29]. A substantial proportion of centers (38.9%) expressed no interest in starting telemedicine, often citing the absence of protocols (16.7%), lack of resources (44.4%), and bureaucratic obstacles (25%). These challenges highlight systemic issues that require comprehensive policy interventions and resource allocation to overcome [30]. The creation of standardized protocols and streamlined bureaucratic processes, coupled with investment in necessary technological infrastructure, could significantly lower these barriers [31].

The operational dynamics of telemedicine use in pain management reveal a structured yet flexible approach. Over half of the centers (57.9%) have scheduled telemedicine visits, with a significant portion offering these services multiple days a week. This structured approach indicates a commitment to integrating telemedicine into routine care. However, the fact that 42.1% of centers operate telemedicine on an as-needed basis suggests variability in demand and resource allocation.

Moreover, the presence of protocols in 47.4% of the centers and patient selection criteria in 71.1% indicate an emerging framework for telemedicine use. However, the absence of such criteria in a notable percentage of centers suggests room for improvement in standardizing telemedicine practices. Establishing clear guidelines and best practices could enhance the consistency and quality of telemedicine services [32].

The impact of telemedicine on service delivery is generally positive, with many centers reporting increases in overall service volume. This trend reflects the potential of telemedicine to enhance access to care, particularly for chronic pain patients who may face mobility issues or reside in remote areas [23, 33]. The reported increases in service volume, though varied, suggest that telemedicine can significantly augment traditional care pathways and optimize healthcare strategies, for example, for addressing the issue of opioid management [34].

Technological capabilities play a crucial role in the effective implementation of telemedicine. The ability to share diagnostic images during teleconsultations in 72.8% of the centers is a positive development, facilitating comprehensive remote assessments. However, the limited use of advanced telemedicine software with artificial intelligence (AI) (9.1%) indicates an area ripe for development. The integration of AI could enhance telemonitoring and alert systems, providing more proactive and personalized care [7, 35]. Notably, by implementing AI strategies, telemedicine platforms can analyze vast amounts of patient data in real time, enabling more accurate and timely assessments of pain management needs. This capability can also be useful to facilitate the development of sophisticated telemonitoring systems that continuously track patient progress and detect subtle changes in health status [36]. Additionally, AI-driven alert systems can promptly notify healthcare providers of potential issues or deterioration in patient conditions, allowing for swift intervention and adjustment of treatment plans. Moreover, the predictive capabilities of AI can aid in anticipating future pain management needs based on individual patient profiles, enabling the implementation of proactive and personalized care strategies tailored to each patient’s unique circumstances [37,38,39,40].

The capability to conduct teleconsultations with various specialists in 39.4% of the centers underscores the interdisciplinary potential of telemedicine. Furthermore, the provision of telemedicine services for fragile patients, such as pediatric patients, in 33.6% of the centers, with dedicated pathways in over half of these, highlights the inclusivity of telemedicine initiatives. This focus on vulnerable populations ensures that telemedicine can cater to diverse patient needs, enhancing overall healthcare equity [41, 42].

Conclusions

The survey conducted by SIAARTI provides valuable insights into the current state of telemedicine in pain management in Italy. While the adoption of telemedicine shows promising trends, addressing the highlighted barriers and disparities is crucial for optimizing its use. Future strategies should focus on standardizing protocols, enhancing technological infrastructure, and ensuring equitable access across regions. By addressing these challenges, telemedicine can fully realize its potential to transform pain management and broader healthcare delivery.

Availability of data and materials

The data that support the findings of this study are not openly available due to reasons of sensitivity and are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Abbreviations

AI:

Artificial intelligence

CT:

Computerized tomography

MRI:

Magnetic resonance imaging

SIAARTI:

Italian Society of Analgesia, Anesthesia, Resuscitation, and Intensive Care

References

  1. Sacchi L, Balestra G, Veltri P, Giacomini M (2024) Education in health informatics: perspectives from the Italian Society for Biomedical Informatics (SIBIM). Stud Health Technol Inform 314:187–191

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Scott Kruse C, Karem P, Shifflett K, Vegi L, Ravi K, Brooks M (2018) Evaluating barriers to adopting telemedicine worldwide: a systematic review. J Telemed Telecare 24:4–12

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bramanti A, Ciurleo R, Vecchione C, Turolla A, Piramide N, Ciccarelli M et al (2024) Telerehabilitation: a solution for patients after hip fracture? Transl Med UniSa 26:30–37

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Buonanno P, Marra A, Iacovazzo C, Franco M, De Simone S (2023) Telemedicine in cancer pain management: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Pain Med 24:226–233

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Moreno-Ligero M, Moral-Munoz JA, Salazar A, Failde I (2023) mHealth intervention for improving pain, quality of life, and functional disability in patients with chronic pain: systematic review. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 11:e40844

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Valenza-Peña G, Calvache-Mateo A, Valenza MC, Granados-Santiago M, Raya-Benítez J, Cabrera-Martos I et al (2024) Effects of telerehabilitation on pain and disability in patients with chronic neck pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Healthcare (Basel) 12:796

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Cascella M, Scarpati G, Bignami EG, Cuomo A, Vittori A, Di Gennaro P et al (2023) Utilizing an artificial intelligence framework (conditional generative adversarial network) to enhance telemedicine strategies for cancer pain management. J Anesth Analg Crit Care 3:19

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Boccuto F, Vizza P, De Rosa S, Tradigo G, Veltri P, Torella D et al (2024) How patients feel with telemedicine devices as an enabling factor for personalised medicine: a preliminary study. Stud Health Technol Inform 314:168–172

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Cascella M, Coluccia S, Grizzuti M, Romano MC, Esposito G, Crispo A et al (2022) Satisfaction with telemedicine for cancer pain management: a model of care and cross-sectional patient satisfaction study. Curr Oncol 29:5566–5578

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Du Y, Gu Y (2024) The development of evaluation scale of the patient satisfaction with telemedicine: a systematic review. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 24:31

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. DeForge SM, Smith K, Anderson K-A, Baltazar AR, Beck M, Enzinger AC et al (2024) Pain coping, multidisciplinary care, and mHealth: patients’ views on managing advanced cancer pain. Psychooncology 33:e6308

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Laird J, Joa B (2024) Remotely delivered psychotherapy for treating chronic pain. Am Fam Physician 109:314–315

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Williams E, White C, Banerjee A, Hellsten M, Nobleza KJ, Nguyen DT et al (2024) Quality of outpatient pediatric palliative care telehealth: a retrospective chart review. J Pain Symptom Manage 67:561-570.e1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Black AC, Edmond SN, Frank JW, Abelleira A, Snow JL, Wesolowicz DM, Becker WC. Pain Care at Home to Amplify Function: Protocol Article. Subst Use Addctn J. 2024:29767342241236032. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1177/29767342241236032.

  15. Cascella M, Marinangeli F, Vittori A, Scala C, Piccinini M, Braga A et al (2021) Open issues and practical suggestions for telemedicine in chronic pain. Int J Environ Res Public Health 18:12416

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Vittori A, Petrucci E, Cascella M, Innamorato M, Cuomo A, Giarratano A et al (2021) Pursuing the recovery of severe chronic musculoskeletal pain in Italy: clinical and organizational perspectives from a SIAARTI survey. J Pain Res 14:3401–3410

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. SIAARTI. SIAARTI. Available from: https://www.siaarti.it/page/organigramma1. [cited 2024 May 28]

  18. Cascella M, Miceli L, Cutugno F, Di Lorenzo G, Morabito A, Oriente A et al (2021) A Delphi consensus approach for the management of chronic pain during and after the COVID-19 era. Int J Environ Res Public Health 18:13372

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Gareev I, Gallyametdinov A, Beylerli O, Valitov E, Alyshov A, Pavlov V et al (2021) The opportunities and challenges of telemedicine during COVID-19 pandemic. Front Biosci (Elite Ed) 13:291–298

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Wahezi SE, Duarte RA, Yerra S, Thomas MA, Pujar B, Sehgal N et al (2020) Telemedicine during COVID-19 and beyond: a practical guide and best practices multidisciplinary approach for the orthopedic and neurologic pain physical examination. Pain Physician 23:S205–S238

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Bokolo AJ (2021) Exploring the adoption of telemedicine and virtual software for care of outpatients during and after COVID-19 pandemic. Ir J Med Sci 190:1–10

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Brunet F, Malas K, Desrosiers M-E (2021) Will telemedicine survive after COVID-19? Healthc Manage Forum 34:256–259

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Scalvini S, Tridico C, Glisenti F, Giordano A, Pirini S, Peduzzi P et al (2009) The SUMMA project: a feasibility study on telemedicine in selected Italian areas. Telemed J E Health 15:261–269

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Bernocchi P, Crotti G, Beato E, Bonometti F, Giudici V, Bertolaia P et al (2023) COVID-19 teleassistance and teleconsultation: a matched case-control study (MIRATO project, Lombardy, Italy). Front Cardiovasc Med 10:1062232

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Giulio de Belvis A, Meregaglia M, Morsella A, Adduci A, Perilli A, Cascini F et al (2022) Italy: health system review. Health Syst Transit. 24:1–236

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. France G, Taroni F, Donatini A (2005) The Italian health-care system. Health Econ 14:S187-202

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Mohammadzadeh N, Rezayi S, Saeedi S (2022) Telemedicine for patient management in remote areas and underserved populations. Disaster Med Public Health Prep 17:e167

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Almathami HKY, Win KT, Vlahu-Gjorgievska E (2020) Barriers and facilitators that influence telemedicine-based, real-time, online consultation at patients’ homes: systematic literature review. J Med Internet Res 22:e16407

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Vimarlund V, Le Rouge C (2013) Barriers and opportunities to the widespread adoption of telemedicine: a bi-country evaluation. Stud Health Technol Inform 192:933

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Kim T, Zuckerman JE (2019) Realizing the potential of telemedicine in global health. J Glob Health 9:020307

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Elendu C, Elendu TC, Elendu ID (2024) 5G-enabled smart hospitals: innovations in patient care and facility management. Medicine (Baltimore) 103:e38239

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Hirani R, Noruzi K, Khuram H, Hussaini AS, Aifuwa EI, Ely KE et al (2024) Artificial intelligence and healthcare: a journey through history, present innovations, and future possibilities. Life (Basel) 14:557

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Mb L, Parmar DS, Singh S, Britto C (2024) An indigenously developed tele-ICU model to treat severe cases of envenomation in remote regions in India. BMJ Case Rep 17:e255786

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Cascella M, Capuozzo M, Ferrara F, Ottaiano A, Perri F, Sabbatino F et al (2024) Two-year Opioid prescription trends in local sanitary agency Naples 3 South, Campania region, Italy. Descriptive analyses and AI-based translational perspectives. Transl Med UniSa. 26:1–14

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Iacoban SR, Artyomenko V, Piron-Dumitrascu M, Suciu ID, Pavelescu LA, Suciu N (2024) Designing the future of prenatal care: an algorithm for a telemedicine-enhanced team-based care model. J Med Life 17:50–56

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Bowman MA, Seehusen DA, Britz J, Ledford CJW (2024) Research to improve clinical care in family medicine: big data, telehealth, artificial intelligence, and more. J Am Board Fam Med 37:161–164

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Bellini V, Valente M, Gaddi AV, Pelosi P, Bignami E (2022) Artificial intelligence and telemedicine in anesthesia: potential and problems. Minerva Anestesiol 88:729–734

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Paiste HJ, Godwin RC, Smith AD, Berkowitz DE, Melvin RL (2024) Strengths-weaknesses-opportunities-threats analysis of artificial intelligence in anesthesiology and perioperative medicine. Front Digit Health 6:1316931

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Gomez-Cabello CA, Borna S, Pressman S, Haider SA, Haider CR, Forte AJ (2024) Artificial-intelligence-based clinical decision support systems in primary care: a scoping review of current clinical implementations. Eur J Investig Health Psychol Educ 14:685–698

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Bignami EG, Vittori A, Lanza R, Compagnone C, Cascella M, Bellini V (2023) The clinical researcher journey in the artificial intelligence era: the PAC-MAN’s challenge. Healthcare (Basel) 11:975

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Strini V, Prendin A, Cerrone V, Schiavolin R, de Barbieri I, Andretta V et al (2023) Scale of assessment of caregiver care burden of people with dementia: a systematic review of literature. Transl Med UniSa 25:38–49

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Cai S, Qin Q, Veazie P, Temkin-Greener H (2024) Telemedicine and disparities in mental health service use among community-dwelling older adults with Alzheimer disease and related dementias. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 25:105027

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Cristina Cacciagrano and SIAARTI Scientific Committee.

Funding

This work was supported also by the Italian Ministry of Health with “Current Research Funds.”

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Unit of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care Medicine, and Pain Medicine, Department of Medicine, Surgery, and Dentistry, University of Salerno, Baronissi, Salerno, 84081, Italy

    Marco Cascella & Ornella Piazza

  2. AUSL Romagna, Pain Unit, Department of Neuroscience, Santa Maria Delle Croci Hospital, Ravenna, 48121, Italy

    Massimo Antonio Innamorato

  3. Department of Clinical-Surgical, Diagnostic and Pediatric Sciences, University of Pavia, Pavia, 27100, Italy

    Silvia Natoli

  4. Anesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain Medicine Division, Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Parma, Parma, Italy

    Valentina Bellini & Elena Giovanna Bignami

  5. Department of Psychology, University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, Caserta, 81100, Italy

    Roberto Pedone

  6. Department of Precision Medicine in Medical, Surgical and Critical Care (Me.Pre.C.C.), University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy

    Antonino Giarratano

  7. Department of Anaesthesia, Intensive Care and Emergency, University Hospital Policlinico ‘Paolo Giaccone’, Palermo, Italy

    Antonino Giarratano

  8. Department of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Treatment, University of L’Aquila, L’Aquila, Coppito, 67100, Italy

    Franco Marinangeli

  9. Department of Pain Medicine, IRCCS C.R.O. National Cancer Institute of Aviano, Pordenone, Aviano, Italy

    Luca Miceli

  10. Department of Anesthesia and Critical Care, ARCO ROMA, Ospedale Pediatrico Bambino Gesù IRCCS, Rome, 00165, Italy

    Alessandro Vittori

  11. Pain Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo, Pavia, Italy

    Silvia Natoli

Authors
  1. Marco Cascella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Massimo Antonio Innamorato
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Silvia Natoli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. Valentina Bellini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ornella Piazza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  6. Roberto Pedone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  7. Antonino Giarratano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  8. Franco Marinangeli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  9. Luca Miceli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  10. Elena Giovanna Bignami
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  11. Alessandro Vittori
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization: M.C., R.P., and A.V.; Data curation M.C. and A.V.; Formal analysis M.C., R.P. and A.V.; Funding acquisition A.V.; Investigation M.C., M.A.I., S.N., R.P. and A.V..; Methodology: M.C., S.N., F.M., E.G.B. and A.V.; Project administration M.C. and A.V.; Resources E.G.B. and A.V.; Software M.C., R.P. and A.V.; Supervision A.V.; Validation: M.C., R.P. and A.V.; Visualization M.C., R.P. and A.V.; Writing—original draft: M.C., R.P., and A.V.; Writing—review & editing: M.C., M.A.I., S.N., V.B., O.P., R.P., A.G., L.M., F.M.,E.G.B and A.V.. All authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Silvia Natoli.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This is an exploratory survey on pain therapy centers and does not investigate on therapies or pathologies relating to the individual patient. It also does not collect sensitive or personal or clinical data. For all these reasons, according to the current legislation for non-interventional or observational studies (Ministerial Circular No. 6, September 2, 2002), it is necessary to submit a survey for approval by an ethics committee only if “the study focused on problems or pathologies in the within which medicinal products are prescribed in the usual way in accordance with the conditions set out in the marketing authorization. The inclusion of the patient in a specific therapeutic strategy is not decided in advance by the trial protocol, but is part of normal clinical practice and the decision to prescribe the medicine is completely independent from that of including the patient in the study.” Our survey was administered to about non-patient 15,000 contacts, voluntarily registered on the SIAARTI platforms. In addition, all participants agreed to participate in the survey and accepted informed consent.

Consent for publication

Not competent.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cascella, M., Innamorato, M.A., Natoli, S. et al. Opportunities and barriers for telemedicine in pain management: insights from a SIAARTI survey among Italian pain physicians. J Anesth Analg Crit Care 4, 64 (2024). https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s44158-024-00202-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s44158-024-00202-1

Keywords

Journal of Anesthesia, Analgesia and Critical Care

ISSN: 2731-3786

Contact us