Strengths	Weaknesses
• Comprehensive call to action for biopsychosocial approach using integrated interdisciplinary care for population health grounded in scientific evidence	• Data are lacking on prevalence, onset, course, and impact on outcomes of pain treatments
• Public health approach to prevention and care facilitated by epidemiologic, health services, social science, medical informatics, implementation, basic, translational, and clinical research informed by clinician and scientist interactions	• Federal Pain Research Strategy coordination of the federal research effort in alignment with the NPS remains preliminary
• Aligns with the Institute for Healthcare Improvement’s triple aim: to improve the patient experience, improve the health of populations, and reduce the per-capita cost of health care	• Focus on chronic pain with little emphasis on prevention, acute pain, or pain at end of life
• Emphasis on core competencies, team-based care, and transformation in payment models	• Limited appropriation of funding to implement the NPS
• Engaged federal agency stakeholdersa
Opportunities	Threats
• Capacity to gather information electronically in the United States (e.g., to develop registries to evaluate, compare, and assess therapies for quality and value)	• Competition for resources and attention on opioid use disorder, overdose, and death in the nation in context of dual crisis of pain leading to policies that may oversimply and focus on reducing supply of opioids
• Development of more effective and safer pain treatments	• People with pain need an individual treatment approach29
• New models for team-based care and care coordination	• Real-life time constraints of providers to spend necessary time with individual patients
• Payment structure reform aimed at patient outcomes	• Significant barriers exist for necessary collaborations
• Context of dual crisis of pain and opioid epidemic increases engagement of stakeholders to coordinate and balance policy details	• Additional problems fuel vulnerabilities to pain and disparities in care
• Refinement of taxonomy, diagnostic criteria, and International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems nomenclature for pain	• Health literacy of nation
	• Bias, discrimination, and stigmatization of persons with pain
	• Limited coordinated research network and competition for research funding inhibiting collaborations
• Integration of interdisciplinary core competencies in prelicensure education, professional licensure examinations, and educational accreditation standards	• Current payment practices complicate use of integrated, interdisciplinary, team-based care
• Development and validation of quality measures for integrated pain care, outcomes of care, and impact of costs	• Consistency in interpretation of policies and implementation at the state level

Note. NPS = National Pain Strategy.

Source. National Pain Strategy Report: collaborators meeting.²⁹

^aAdministration for Community Living, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Defense, Drug Enforcement Administration, Food and Drug Administration, Health Resources and Services Administration, Indian Health Service, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, National Institutes of Health, National Library of Medicine, National Prevention Council, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office of Minority Health, Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, Office of the Surgeon General, Regional Health Administrators, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, and Veterans Health Administration.