Library

APS Bulletin • Volume 12, Number 3, May/June 2002

APS Membership

APS Member Survey Report

In 2001, APS surveyed its members to gauge their satisfaction with their membership and the society’s services, and to determine additional member needs. Approximately 24% of APS members responded to the Web-based survey. Respondents closely paralleled APS members in distribution by discipline, with a slightly higher proportion of nurses and psychologists, and slightly lower representation from physicians. Of these respondents, 60% reported that their primary focus is clinical, while 28% focus primarily on research and 12% on teaching. More than 46% of respondents reported that they have been in pain treatment and research for more than 10 years, while only 18% reported belonging to APS for 10 years or more.

By comparing the demographics of survey respondents in 2001 to prior survey data (1997 and 1994) it was noted that the membership is aging. Additionally, APS has experienced a lack of growth in overall membership. Contributing environmental factors may include competing organizations and lack of reimbursement for interdisciplinary care.

Overview of Results

Membership

With regard to membership issues, 84% of respondents said they were either satisfied or very satisfied with their membership. A little more than 80% of respondents reported they were either satisfied or very satisfied with APS’s performance in improving standards of care through guidelines, position papers and other efforts to increase public awareness. Also highly rated were APS’s ability to provide professional educational programs, contribute to and advocate for healthcare policy and strengthen the position of pain management.

Members ranked the importance of member benefits, listing APS Bulletin, The Journal of Pain, Annual Scientific Meeting, Clinical Practice Guidelines, and Interdisciplinary Networking as the most important benefits. When asked for recommendations to improve services for members, 56% reported they felt that information outreach should receive top priority. Respondents’ comments underscored a pressing need to improve communications with members.

Asked if the APS leadership accurately represents members’ interests and opinions, 14.93% of respondents answered no. Comments revealed that the society’s leadership is perceived by some to be isolated and exclusive, making it very difficult for persons “outside the power base” to become involved. Members also observed that more diversity in leadership is needed.

Education

With regard to APS’s education mission, 78% of respondents stated they were either satisfied or very satisfied with the society’s performance in providing professional education on pain treatment and research. Professional education was considered to be among the most important goals of the society for funding. Of the survey respondents more than one third (36.4%) had never attended an annual meeting, citing costs and time away from work as major reasons for not attending.

Of those who had attended one or more meetings, there was a high degree of satisfaction with the caliber of speakers and information presented as well as with the format of the meeting. However, 21.6% of respondents were unsatisfied or very unsatisfied with representation from their discipline in presentations. These sentiments were echoed in comments about specific disciplines or interests being neglected or marginalized in APS and at the annual meeting.

With regard to programming for future meetings, the most highly rated topics were neuropathic pain/CRPS, pharmacologic management (nonopioids and antidepressants), pain and addiction, pain assessment, stress and pain, depression and pain, interdisciplinary pain management and pain in the elderly.

The survey respondents were also interested in having online continuing education opportunities available (78%).

Strategic Priorities

The survey asked members to indicate which APS goals were the highest priorities for funding. Respondents prioritized APS’s current programs as follows:

Contributing to and advocating for healthcare policy
Improving standards of care through guidelines, position papers, and efforts to increase public awareness of pain issues
Providing professional education programs concerning pain management, treatment and research
Strengthening position of pain management in healthcare
Improving federal funding and focus on pain research
Fostering interaction between basic scientists and clinicians

The results of the survey were presented to the APS Board of Directors for discussion at the 2002 annual meeting, March 13 in Baltimore. Discussion focused on several salient issues and opportunities for improvement including

Preserving APS’s position and rededicating the organization to its unique mission and values
Improving communication and responsiveness to diverse members’ needs, opinions and interests
Better communicating the value of all disciplines and perspectives in pain care
Ensuring that diverse member interests and perspectives are given high visibility in APS publications and at the annual meeting
Offer more opportunities for younger members to become involved in APS programs and provide wide opportunities for volunteers to become active in leadership positions
Clearly define APS’s mission and priorities for outreach education of nonmember audiences, including nonspecialist clinicians, administrators, regulators, payers and the like

The board discussed numerous tactical recommendations to support the organizational goals and member issues that emerged from the survey. The goals, philosophies and issues will be structured into a strategic plan with tactical recommendations and implementation strategies for the board to review during its strategic planning discussion, at the 2002 midyear board meeting in September.

Issue Index