Search

Introduction/Aims: Oxaliplatin often causes acute or chronic peripheral neuropathy in patients with an intestinal or pancreatic tumor, but in‐depth insights in its influence on quality of life (QoL) are lacking. We explored the influence of acute oxaliplatin‐induced peripheral neuropathy (OIPN) on daily QoL in these patients. Methods: We performed semistructured interviews with a purposive sample of patients receiving oxaliplatin and possibly experiencing acute OIPN. Interviews were audio‐recorded, transcribed verbatim, and coded by two researchers. Data were analyzed by using the constant comparative method for content analysis with ATLAS.ti software. Results: After nine patients, saturation took place. In total, 11 patients were interviewed. Four themes were extracted from the data: (1) adverse effects, (2) physical (un)well‐being, (3) emotional aspects, and (4) treatment aspects. All participants were suffering from acute OIPN to a certain extent, leading to restrictions in daily activities such as household chores, but also to a decrease in mobility and independency. Other adverse effects such as general malaise and gastrointestinal side effects also influenced the participants' well‐being, as did the diagnosis and prognosis of their disease. Conclusion: Acute OIPN, together with other side effects of chemotherapeutic treatment and the difficulties that come with the diagnosis of cancer and its prognosis, largely influences patients' daily QoL. Managing expectations (by patient education) seems important. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is an effective therapy to reduce pain in patients who suffer from failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS). In order to inform patients optimally prior to this therapy, knowing their expectations is crucial. Methods: Thirteen patients suffering from FBSS and scheduled for SCS were interviewed using a semistructured protocol. Patients were interviewed either at home or at their treating hospital. Data from these interviews were analyzed using directed content analysis. In addition to the qualitative interviews, an adjusted Brief Pain Inventory questionnaire was used to quantify expectations. Results: The expectations of patients with regard to SCS could be subdivided into 13 categories, which could be grouped into 6 general themes: (1) physical well‐being, (2) social well‐being, (3) material well‐being, (4) emotional well‐being, (5) development and activity, and (6) constraints of the procedure of SCS. These findings confirm patients’ expectations about the improvement of their quality of life by SCS for FBSS. This indicates that assessing pain relief is not enough to adequately evaluate the effects of SCS. The small diversity within the studied population and the lack of patient‐to‐patient education are 2 possible limitations of this study. Conclusions: To improve education for patients prior to SCS surgery and to evaluate the effects of SCS, a multidimensional approach needs to be implemented. Possible disadvantages of SCS need to be discussed prior to the treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Systematic pain registration and assessment with a visual analog scale ( VAS) or numeric rating scale ( NRS) at each visit are key recommendations in one of the most recent guidelines on cancer pain management. It is unclear whether this recommendation is applied. Objectives The aim was to explore registration of pain in medical records of patients visiting the medical oncology outpatient clinic. Methods In a multicenter study in six Dutch hospitals, data were extracted from medical records of 380 outpatients with cancer. Data of the first three visits at the outpatient clinic were studied. Descriptive statistics were conducted. Results In 23% of all 987 visits at the outpatient clinic, pain or absence of pain was registered, and in an additional 15%, a nonspecific symptom description was given. Regarding all other visits, (62%) pain or absence of pain was not documented at all. Pain measurement using a VAS or NRS was documented in only one visit. Pain was more often registered in medical records of patients with metastasis, as well as in those of patients with urogenital tumors. Conclusion Pain in medical oncology outpatients is not systematically registered in their medical records. With one exception, pain was not registered with a VAS or NRS. Yet, registration and assessment of pain to monitor pain are essential to evaluate and adapt pain treatment over time. Pain registration has not improved since 2001 and therefore implementing the recommendations regarding systematic monitoring of pain is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]