Search

Aim: The aim of this study was to assess the Personalized Insomnia Intensity Goal (PIIG), the achievement of Personalized Goal Response (PGR), and Patient Global Impression (PGI) after a comprehensive symptom management. Patients and methods: Advanced cancer patients admitted to palliative care units rated pain and symptoms intensity and their PIIG by using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Score (ESAS) (T0). In patients with significant levels of insomnia, the achievement of target expected (PIIG) was measured (patient goal response, PIGR), as well the patient global impression (PGI), by the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), after a comprehensive symptom management (T7). Results: Three hundred ninety-seven patients with a level of insomnia of ≥ 3 on ESAS were analyzed in this study. The mean values of PIIG at T0 and T7 were 1.2 (SD 1.5) and 0.9 (SD 1.4), respectively. Most patients (n = 406, 89.8%) indicated a PIIG of ≤ 3 as a target at T0. Such target was significantly lower at T7 (p = < 0.0005). PGI, expressed as MCID, was perceived with a mean decrease in insomnia intensity of − 2.3. In a minority of patients (n = 26; 5.8%) insomnia worsened, with a MCID of 0.50 (SD 2.8). Higher insomnia intensity at T0 and lower insomnia intensity at T7 were independently related to PGI. PIGR was achieved in 87.9% of patients. PIGR was associated with PIIG at T0, and inversely associated to insomnia intensity at T0 and T7, and PIIG at T7. Conclusion: PGIR and PGI seem to be relevant for evaluating the effects of a comprehensive management of insomnia, suggesting therapeutic decisions according to PIIG. Some factors influencing the individual target and clinical response have been detected.

Background The aim of this study was to assess the patients’ global impression (PGI) after symptom management, as well as the achievement of personalized symptom goals (PSG). The secondary outcome was to assess related factors. Subjects, Materials, and Methods Advanced cancer patients admitted to palliative care units rated symptom intensity by using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Score (ESAS) at admission and then after 1 week. For each symptom, patient-reported PGI and PSG, as well as the rate of PSG response, were evaluated. Results Eight hundred seventy-six patients were taken into consideration for this study. A mean of 1.71–2.16 points was necessary to perceive a bit better improvement of symptom intensity. Most patients had a PSG of ≤3. A statistically significant number of patients achieved their PSG after starting palliative care. Patients with high intensity of ESAS items at admission achieved a more favorable PGI response. In the multivariate analysis, symptom intensity and PSG were the most frequent factors independently associated to a best PGI, whereas high levels of Karnofsky had a lower odd ratio. Conclusion PSG and PGI seem to be relevant for patients’ assessment and decision-making process, translating in terms of therapeutic intervention. Some factors may be implicated in determining the individual target and clinical response. Implications for Practice Personalized symptom goals and global impression of change are relevant for patients’ assessment and decision-making process, translating in terms of therapeutic intervention. Some factors may be implicated in determining the individual target and clinical response.

Background Pain intensity and patients’ impression of global improvement are widely used patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in clinical practice and research. They are commonly assessed using the Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) and Global Rating of Change (GROC) questionnaires. The GROC is essential as an anchor for evaluating the psychometric properties of PROMs. Both of these PROMs are translated to many languages and have shown excellent psychometric properties. Their availability in Nepali would facilitate pain research and cross-cultural comparison of research findings. Therefore, the objectives of this study were to translate and cross-culturally adapt the NPRS and GROC into Nepali and to assess the psychometric properties of the Nepali version of the NPRS (NPRS-NP). Methods After translating and cross-culturally adapting the NPRS and GROC into Nepali using recommended guidelines, NPRS-NP was administered to 104 individuals with musculoskeletal pain twice. The Nepali version of the GROC (GROC-NP) was administered at the follow-up for anchor-based assessment. (1) Test-retest reliability and minimum detectable change (MDC) among the stable group, (2) construct validity (by single sample t-test within the improved group and independent sample t-test between groups), and (3) concurrent validity were assessed. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were plotted to determine the responsiveness of the NPRS-NP using the area under the curve (AUC), and minimum important changes (MIC) for small, medium and large improvements. Results Significant cultural adaptations were required to obtain relevant Nepali versions of both the NPRS and GROC. The NPRS-NP showed excellent test-retest reliability and a MDC of 1.13 points. NPRS-NP demonstrated a good construct validity by significant within-group difference in mean of NPRS score- t(63)= 7.57, P