Search

Lyne Lalonde,1–4 Manon Choinière,3,5 Elisabeth Martin,3 Lise Lévesque,3 Éveline Hudon,2,3,6 Danielle Bélanger,2 Sylvie Perreault,1,7 Anaïs Lacasse,8 Marie-Claude Laliberté1,9 1Faculty of Pharmacy, Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada; 2Équipe de recherche en soins de première ligne, Centre de santé et de services sociaux de Laval, Laval, QC, Canada; 3Centre de recherche, Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CRCHUM), Montreal, QC, Canada; 4Sanofi Aventis Endowment Chair in Ambulatory Pharmaceutical Care, Faculty of Pharmacy, Université de Montréal and Centre de santé et de services sociaux de Laval, QC, Canada; 5Department of Anesthesiology, Faculty of Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada; 6Department of Family Medicine and Emergency, Faculty of Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada; 7Sanofi Aventis Endowment Chair in Drug Utilization, Faculty of Pharmacy, Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada; 8Département des sciences de la santé, Université du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue, Rouyn-Noranda, QC, Canada; 9AbbVie Corporation, St-Laurent, QC, Canada Purpose: There is evidence that the management of chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) in primary care is far from being optimal. A 1-day workshop was held to explore the perceptions of key actors regarding the challenges and priority interventions to improve CNCP management in primary care. Methods: Using the Chronic Care Model as a conceptual framework, physicians (n=6), pharmacists (n=6), nurses (n=6), physiotherapists (n=6), psychologists (n=6), pain specialists (n=6), patients (n=3), family members (n=3), decision makers and managers (n=4), and pain researchers (n=7) took part in seven focus groups and five nominal groups. Results: Challenges identified in focus group discussions were related to five dimensions: knowledge gap, “work in silos”, lack of awareness that CNCP represents an important clinical problem, difficulties in access to health professionals and services, and patient empowerment needs. Based on the nominal group discussions, the following priority interventions were identified: interdisciplinary continuing education, interdisciplinary treatment approach, regional expert leadership, creation and definition of care paths, and patient education programs. Conclusion: Barriers to optimal management of CNCP in primary care are numerous. Improving its management cannot be envisioned without considering multifaceted interventions targeting several dimensions of the Chronic Care Model and focusing on both clinicians and patients. Keywords: chronic pain, community-based participatory research, health service accessibility, patient-centered care, primary health care

Ghaya Jouini,1–3 Manon Choinière,3,4 Elisabeth Martin,2,3 Sylvie Perreault,1,5 Djamal Berbiche,2,3 David Lussier,6–8 Eveline Hudon,2,3,9 Lyne Lalonde1–3,101Faculty of Pharmacy, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; 2Équipe de recherche en soins de première ligne, Centre de santé et de services sociaux de Laval, Laval, Quebec, Canada; 3Centre de recherche du Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CRCHUM), Montreal, Quebec, Canada; 4Department of Anesthesiology, Faculty of Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; 5Sanofi-Aventis Endowment Research Chair in Optimal Drug Use, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; 6Institut universitaire de gériatrie de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; 7Division of Geriatric Medicine and Alan-Edwards Center for Research on Pain, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; 8Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; 9Department of Family Medicine and Emergency, Faculty of Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; 10Sanofi-Aventis Endowment Research Chair in Ambulatory Pharmaceutical Care, Université de Montréal and Centre de santé et de services sociaux de Laval, Quebec, CanadaPurpose: Describe the pharmacotherapeutic management of primary-care patients with chronic noncancer pain, assess their satisfaction with pain treatment, and identify the determinants of their satisfaction.Methods: A cohort study was conducted in Quebec (Canada). Patients reporting chronic noncancer pain with an average pain intensity of at least 4 on a 0–10 scale (10= worst possible pain) and having an active analgesic prescription from a primary-care physician were recruited. They completed a telephone interview and a self-administered questionnaire to document their pain, emotional well-being, satisfaction with treatment, and barriers/beliefs/attitudes about pain and its treatment. Information on pharmacotherapy was based on an administrative provincial database and pharmacies' charts. Determinants of patients' satisfaction were identified using multivariate linear regression models.Results: Four hundred and eighty six patients participated. Their mean age was 58.4 years and they had had pain for a mean of 11.7 years (standard deviation, ±11.1) at an average pain intensity of 6.5 in the past week. Although 90% reported adverse gastrointestinal effects, 36.4% and 54.4% of these patients took no over-the-counter or prescribed medication for constipation or nausea, respectively. On a scale from 0–100, the mean overall satisfaction score was 64.7 (95% confidence interval [CI] =63.5–65.9). Patient satisfaction was low, particularly regarding the “information about pain and its treatment” (mean 50.6; 95% CI =47.6–53.7) and “treatment efficacy” (mean 53.6; 95% CI =51.5–55.6) subscales. The overall treatment satisfaction score decreased with more pain disability, probable depression and anxiety, more barriers to pain treatment, higher incidence of nausea, and use of over-the-counter analgesics.Conclusion: In primary care, patients’ level of satisfaction with their pain treatment is not optimal. This study underlines how the expanded scope of practice of community pharmacists may allow them to play a pivotal role in providing information, discussing barriers to pain treatment, and monitoring pain disability, and by appropriately managing pharmacotherapy to optimize effectiveness while minimizing adverse effects.Keywords: noncancer chronic pain, primary care, pharmacotherapy, analgesic, adverse effects, cohort study

According to the facial feedback hypothesis, people’s affective responses can be influenced by their own facial expression (e.g., smiling, pouting), even when their expression did not result from their emotional experiences. For example, Strack, Martin, and Stepper (1988) instructed participants to rate the funniness of cartoons using a pen that they held in their mouth. In line with the facial feedback hypothesis, when participants held the pen with their teeth (inducing a “smile”), they rated the cartoons as funnier than when they held the pen with their lips (inducing a “pout”). This seminal study of the facial feedback hypothesis has not been replicated directly. This Registered Replication Report describes the results of 17 independent direct replications of Study 1 from Strack et al. (1988), all of which followed the same vetted protocol. A meta-analysis of these studies examined the difference in funniness ratings between the “smile” and “pout” conditions. The original Strack et al. (1988) study reported a rating difference of 0.82 units on a 10-point Likert scale. Our meta-analysis revealed a rating difference of 0.03 units with a 95% confidence interval ranging from −0.11 to 0.16.