Stefan Elbers

211 General discussion magnitude of effect, clinical relevance and the confidence in the results of each particular outcome of interest – and a living guideline panel that could be consulted when there is a change in the outcome (Akl et al., 2017). Forest plots Study / patient characteristics Data extraction forms Time Series impt_cohorts Dashboard Flow chart Intervention characteristics Risk of bias forms SMC Pre – post SMC Post – f/u SMC Pre – f/u DEP GE PI PA ANX SE SRF PF ANG DEP GE PI PA ANX SE SRF PF ANG DEP GE PI PA ANX SE SRF PF ANG DEP GE PI PA ANX SE SRF PF ANG TIDIER STEERING GROUP USER FEEDBACK Protocol amendments Yearly update Meeting notes 2 1 3 2 Figure 1. Infrastructure of the Web Application. Red Elements Indicate Possible Extensions of the Application. 2. Self-Management Interventions and Chronic Pain Since the publication of our study on self-management interventions in 2018, we have identified multiple studies that shed new light on self-management for chronic pain. Martinez-Calderon et al. (Martinez-Calderon et al., 2020) investigated the effectiveness of various interventions on pain self-efficacy, reporting that self-management interventions showed no improvement in pain self-efficacy at 12-month follow-up, compared to control conditions, which differs from the small effect that we report in Chapter 4. This may be explained by differences in patient inclusion criteria and ideas about the definition of self- management interventions. More specifically, the eligibility criteria of our study required an education and training component, whereas Martinez-Calderon and colleagues focused