GE-Daradia Online Fellowship in Pain Medicine (Basic) Feedback
Participant Feedback, Poll Results & Learning Outcomes (Module-wise, Continuously Updated) for 24th Batch (7th Jan-31st Mar)
This page transparently shares real participant feedback, poll results, and learning activity data from the Daradia Online Fellowship in Pain Medicine (Basic).
All 12 modules are documented on this single page and updated after the completion of each module.
What is published after every module
- Overall helpfulness rating (10-point scale)
- Rating distribution (for chart display)
- Selected participant comments (with consent / anonymised)
- Poll results (practice insights)
- Knowledge-check (MCQ) response summary
- Course-team improvement actions
How feedback is collected (Transparency statement)
- Feedback is collected using a structured Google Form after each module.
- Participants rate the module on a 1–10 scale (10 = extremely helpful).
- The form includes:
- Overall rating
- “Most valuable part of the module”
- “Topics needing more explanation”
- 2 knowledge-check MCQs
- 1 clinical practice poll
- Optional written comment
- Optional name/location for recognition
Comment display policy
- Only representative comments are shown publicly.
- Names/locations are displayed only if participants have opted for it
- All raw feedback is internally reviewed and archived.
Module 1 Feedback
Overall Course Rating (from 41 feedback)
Overall average rating (out of 10): 9.02 / 10
Median: 10 / 10
Last updated on: 15 January 2026
A. Overall rating distribution
- 10 → 22 participants (53.7%)
- 9 → 7 participants (17.1%)
- 8 → 7 participants (17.1%)
- 1-7 → 5 participants (12.2%)
B. Most valuable parts (participant-reported themes)
Participants most frequently highlighted:
- Pain physiology fundamentals
- Pain pathways and mechanisms
- Classification of pain (nociceptive / neuropathic / nociplastic)
- Linking physiology with clinical reasoning
- Structured revision-friendly teaching
Common phrases included:
“Basics of pain physiology”, “Pain pathway”, “Classification of pain”, “Good revision”, “Clear concept building”.
C. Poll result (clinical practice insight)
Question:
“In your clinical practice, how often do you miss nociplastic pain?”
Results (n = 41)
- Very often → 19 (46.3%)
- Sometimes → 14 (34.1%)
- Not sure → 7 (17.1%)
- Rarely → 1 (2.4%)
Interpretation
Nearly 80% of clinicians reported missing nociplastic pain either very often or sometimes, reinforcing the need for mechanism-based pain classification early in training.
D. Knowledge-check (MCQ summary)
MCQ 1
Clinical scenario: widespread pain, normal MRI, no neurological deficit, severe disproportionate pain.
Correct answer: Nociplastic pain
Responses:
- Nociplastic → 39
- Psychogenic → 1
- Nociceptive → 1
- Neuropathic → 0
Accuracy: 95.1%
MCQ 2
“Gate Control Theory of pain was proposed by?”
Correct answer: Melzack and Wall
Responses:
- Melzack & Wall → 41
Accuracy: 100%
E. Topics participants wanted more explanation on
Most participants answered: “No”
Minor requests included:
- More clarity on sympathetic mediated pain pathways
- Expanded discussion on clinical management of nociplastic pain
- Slightly more depth on selected physiology–pharmacology links
- A few requests for simplified orientation to ultrasound relevance
F. Selected comments (names displayed if participants have opted)
- “Its very helpful module for young Anaesthetists like me.”
— Dr Saurabh Pandey - “Very good in-depth explanation by both speakers, liked it a lot.”
— Dr Surya Theja, New Delhi, India - “Nice module for new comer like me who dont know basic of pain but want to pursue pain medicine practice.”
— Dr Shaikh Shafiya, Pune, Maharashtra - “Excellent presentation by both Dr Das & Dr Shirish. Dr Das made such a complex topic so simple. First lecture itself was so motivating.”
— Participant (anonymous) - “Helpful and excellent module.”
— Participant (anonymous) - “Excellent.”
— Dr Syed Altaf Uz Zaman, Dhaka, Bangladesh - “Good explanation about the topics.”
— Participant (anonymous)
G. Improvement actions taken by course team
Based on Module 1 feedback, we will:
- Add a dedicated slide block on sympathetic mediated pain pathways
- Introduce a concise nociplastic pain identification + first-line management framework
- Add a short reading list linking physiology concepts to clinical decision-making
- Improve signposting of ultrasound relevance for later procedural modules
Module 2 Feedback
Overall Course Rating (from 53 feedback)
Module Title
Module 2: Ultrasound Basics, How to Publish, and Introduction to PRP
This module focused on building strong conceptual foundations in:
- Pain physiology and mechanisms
- Basics of musculoskeletal ultrasound
- Introduction to regenerative therapies, especially PRP
- Research orientation and publication awareness for clinicians
Overall Participant Rating (Module 2)
- Total responses: 53
- Average rating: 9.06 / 10
Rating Distribution
| Rating | Number of Participants |
|---|---|
| 10 | 31 |
| 9 | 6 |
| 8 | 7 |
| 7 | 7 |
| 1-6 | 2 |
More than 80% participants rated the module 8, 9 or 10, indicating very high satisfaction and perceived educational value.
Most Valuable Topics (as reported by participants)
Participants highlighted the following areas as the most useful:
- PRP and regenerative pain management – most frequently mentioned
- Basics of ultrasound imaging and probe handling
- Understanding how to start research and publications as a clinician
These responses strongly validate the module’s focus on practical, clinically applicable pain medicine fundamentals.
Research & Publication Orientation – A Unique Strength
A significant number of participants appreciated that the module addressed:
- How clinicians can begin research
- How to write and submit scientific papers
- Common barriers in academic publishing
- Practical strategies to overcome lack of time, guidance, and confidence
This academic orientation is rarely included in conventional pain fellowships and has emerged as a distinctive strength of the Daradia program.
Poll result:
Some Selected Participant Comments
(Names displayed only where consent was provided by the physician)
“Excellent.”
– Shyam Kumar Shah, Nepal
“Even though it is an online class, I find myself very engaged and motivated to learn pain medicine systematically.”
– Rohit Man Singh, Nepal
“Please disable the chat function and limit questions to the end, so the flow of teaching remains uninterrupted.”
“Good overview of PRP and ultrasound basics. It cleared many of my concepts.”
“Live demo of needle manipulation was excellent and beyond imagination, clarified so many doubts.”
Key Learning Impact of Module 2
Based on participant feedback, Module 2 successfully:
- Built confidence in ultrasound basics
- Introduced PRP and regenerative pain therapies clearly
- Motivated clinicians toward academic research and publication
- Helped bridge the gap between theory and real-world pain practice
Why This Matters for Future Fellows
Feedback from Module 2 confirms that the GE–Daradia Online Fellowship:
- Emphasizes foundation-first learning
- Integrates clinical skills + academic growth
- Maintains high learner engagement even in online format
- Addresses real-world challenges faced by practicing pain physicians
This structured approach ensures that fellows do not merely learn procedures, but develop into:
competent clinicians, confident ultrasound users, and academically oriented pain specialists.
Module 3 Feedback
Module 3 Focus
Module 3 of the GE–Daradia Online Fellowship in Pain Medicine is dedicated to the systematic clinical evaluation of chronic low back pain, identification of multiple pain generators, lumbar facet joint pain, lumbar spinal stenosis, and structured planning of fluoroscopy (C-arm) guided interventions.
The module integrates:
- History taking and clinical examination
- Differentiation of common lumbar pain mechanisms
- Decision-making for intervention selection
- Live procedural demonstrations using C-arm fluoroscopy
Participant Satisfaction Summary
Based on structured feedback from 43 participating physicians:
- Average rating: 9.35 / 10
- Median rating: 10 / 10
- 75% of participants rated the module 10/10
- Over 90% rated it 9 or higher
This indicates consistently high satisfaction across different experience levels and specialties.
Most Valued Components (from participant responses)
Physicians most frequently highlighted:
- Understanding that more than one pain generator is commonly active
- Clinical differentiation of:
- Lumbar facet joint pain
- Spinal stenosis pain patterns
- Disc-related pain
- Step-by-step C-arm–guided procedure demonstration
- Logical transition from theory → clinical reasoning → intervention
Several participants explicitly noted that the procedural demonstrations after theoretical discussion made the learning “clear” and “easy to apply”.
Reported Learning Outcomes
After completing Module 3, participants reported improvement in:
- Identifying dominant vs secondary pain generators
- Planning interventions based on mechanism rather than imaging alone
- Clinical confidence in fluoroscopy-guided procedures
- Structured low back pain evaluation in routine OPD practice
- Understanding coexistence of multiple lumbar pain sources
Selected Participant Testimonials (Opted-in)
Dr. Sadia Wani – Jammu & Kashmir, India
“It was very informative and there was excellent demonstration….”
Dr. Garima – Bangalore, India
“Excellent.”
Dr. Sharmin Aktar – Dhaka, Bangladesh
“Excellent.”
Dr. G. Anandakumar – Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District, India
“Excellent.”
Dr. Anwar Pasha – Interventional Pain Specialist, Dhaka, Bangladesh
“A highly practical module that enhanced my ability to differentiate low back pain generators through history and functional patterns. Special thanks to Prof. Goutom Sir for his guidance in the clinical approach..”
Dr. Sruthy – Kochi, Kerala, India
“Really informative.”
Additional General Feedback Themes
Participants also described the module as:
- “Very useful”
- “Overall good”
- “Highly practical”
- “Nice presentation”
- “Clinically relevant for daily practice”
A small number of learners requested slower pacing or additional explanation in the final practical session, which is being incorporated into future module refinements.
Poll
Why Module 3 Is Considered Clinically Impactful
Unlike generic online pain courses, this module emphasizes:
- Mechanism-based diagnosis
- Clinical reasoning over protocol-based injections
- Faculty experience from high-volume interventional pain practice at Daradia: The Pain Clinic
- Real-world procedural workflow using fluoroscopy
Module 4 Feedback – Precision, Confidence & Advanced Interventional Clarity
Module 4 of the GE–Daradia Online Fellowship in Pain Medicine builds on foundational knowledge and moves participants toward structured, mechanism-based interventional thinking. The feedback from this module reflects strong clinical impact and improved procedural confidence among participants.
Physicians particularly appreciated the integration of anatomical clarity, imaging guidance, and stepwise procedural logic.
Overall Participant Rating (Module 4)
- Total responses: 51
- Average rating: 9.29 / 10
Rating Distribution
| Rating | Number of Participants |
|---|---|
| 10 | 41 |
| 9 | 6 |
| 8 | 1 |
| 7 | 2 |
| 6 | 1 |
More than 80% participants rated the module 10/10, indicating excellent satisfaction and perceived educational value.
What Participants Appreciated Most
Participants frequently highlighted:
- Clear explanation of advanced interventional concepts
- Logical correlation between anatomy and fluoroscopic imaging
- Structured demonstration of needle trajectory planning
- Practical guidance on avoiding procedural errors
- Real-world application to daily interventional practice
Several fellows mentioned that Module 4 helped them transition from “knowing procedures” to “understanding why and when to perform them.”
Selected Participant Comments (Opted-In)
Dr. Ravi Menon (Kochi, Kerala)
“Module 4 significantly improved my confidence in C-arm–guided procedures. The anatomical explanation before demonstration made everything clearer.”
DR SYED ALTAF UZ ZAMAN (Dhaka, Bangladesh)
“Excellent, specially Dr Goutam Das Sir’s lecture.”
Dr. Anwar Pasha (Old Dhaka, Bangladesh)
“It was an amazing session.”
Dr. Garima. (Bangalore, India)
“Excellent…”
Reported Learning Improvements
After completing Module 4, participants reported:
- Better understanding of advanced spine pain mechanisms
- Improved C-arm orientation and needle positioning strategy
- Greater procedural safety awareness
- Enhanced confidence in intervention planning
- More structured clinical reasoning
Conclusion
Module 4 continues the high academic and practical standards of the GE–Daradia Online Fellowship in Pain Medicine. The feedback demonstrates that participants value clarity, structure, and clinically applicable teaching that enhances both knowledge and confidence in interventional pain practice.
