Search

Background Being involved in caring for family members during illness is part of the Indonesian culture, even during hospitalization. It is unknown which factors influence the quality of life (QoL) of family members taking care of their loved ones. The present study aims to identify factors influencing the QoL of family caregivers of hospitalized patients with cancer in Indonesia. Methods A cross-sectional survey was performed. Data were collected in a general hospital in Yogyakarta from September to December 2011. Family caregivers of patients with cancer were invited to participate. Regression analysis was used to determine which aspects of caring and which demographic characteristics influenced their QoL. The Caregiver QoL Index-Cancer questionnaire was used to measure the QoL. Results One hundred of 120 invited caregivers (83%) completed the questionnaire. Being involved in psychological issues in caring ( β = 0.374; p = 0.000), younger age ( β = −0.282; p = 0.003), no previous caring experience ( β = −0.301; p = 0.001), and not being the spouse ( β = −0.228; p = 0.015) negatively influenced the QoL and explained 31% of the variation (adjusted R2 = 0.312; F = 12.24; p = 0.000). Gender, education level, and time spent on caring did not influence the QoL of family caregivers. Conclusions Our findings identified modifiable factors such as dealing with psychological issues and lack of experience in caring that negatively influenced the QoL of family caregivers. These factors are potential targets for intervention strategies. Education and intervention programs focusing on dealing with psychological problems in cancer care might improve the QoL of both patients and their families. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [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]

Objective More than 50% of patients with cancer experience pain. Patient empowerment has been highlighted as central to success in pain management. Up to now, no clear model for this patient group exists, yet several strategies to empower patients have been used in clinical practice. This review examines how empowerment or related concepts have been described in relation to pain management in patients with cancer. With the help of a conceptual model, recommendations for clinical practice are provided. Methods An integrative review was conducted, using the databases PubMed, CINAHL and PsycINFO. We evaluated papers discussing empowerment or related concepts in relation to pain management in patients with cancer. We analyzed the term 'empowerment' semantically. Results From a total of 5984 identified papers, 34 were included for analysis. Empowerment has been described with the concepts self-efficacy, active patient participation, increasing abilities, and control of life. Most papers focus on pain treatment induced by the professional caregiver or on the active involvement of the patient, and not on the combination of both. The following elements of empowerment could be discriminated: role of the patient, role of the professional, resources, self-efficacy, active coping, and shared decision making. Conclusions On the basis of these findings, we propose a conceptual model to empower patients in controlling cancer pain. We recommend focusing on pain treatment given by the professional, on the active involvement of the patient, and on the interaction of both. Our model might also be useful for other patient groups or specific contexts, especially in symptom management. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: In the legal performance of the euthanasia procedure, unbearable suffering, one of the requirements of due care, is difficult to assess. Evaluation of the current knowledge of unbearable suffering is needed in the ongoing debate about the conditions on which EAS can be approved. Methods: Using an integrative literature review, we evaluated publications with definitions of suffering in general or in end-of-life situations and with descriptions of suffering in the context of a request for EAS. Data synthesis: From the 1482 citations identified, we included 55 publications: 20 articles about definitions of suffering and 35 empirical studies on suffering. We found no definition of unbearable suffering in the context of a request for EAS. Qualitative patient-centered studies revealed the most motivations, and the most motivations named by only one of the three parties involved. The studies of relatives were limited, mainly quantitative and retrospective. We found no studies that brought together the views of the patients, relatives, and healthcare professionals. Conclusions: There is no generally accepted definition of ‘unbearable suffering’ in the context of a request for EAS. On the basis of the articles reviewed, we propose the following conceptual definition: ‘Unbearable suffering in the context of a request for EAS is a profoundly personal experience of an actual or perceived impending threat to the integrity or life of the person, which has a significant duration and a central place in the person's mind’. Further patient-centered qualitative research into suffering is needed to clarify this definition. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Many patients with cancer suffer from pain, which is often not optimally treated. In 2008, the evidence-based, multidisciplinary Dutch guideline on the diagnosis and treatment of pain in this patient group was published. We assessed knowledge about and adherence to the guideline by pain specialists. Methods A cross-sectional case vignette survey describing a palliative patient with intractable pancreatic cancer and pain was sent to all 350 Dutch anesthesiologists registered as pain specialists at the Netherlands Association of Anesthesiology. Descriptive statistics were conducted. Results Ninety-three pain specialists completed the questionnaire (27%). The majority appeared to follow the guideline recommendations on pharmacological (99%) and invasive treatment (95%) in the diverse stages of the disease. However, the recommendation to use a one-dimensional pain scale to evaluate the effect of pain treatment and the recommendation to perform a multidimensional pain assessment if the patient in pain is in a deteriorating stage were only followed by a minority of the respondents (23% and 15%, respectively). Conclusions Regarding most recommendations, Dutch pain specialists know and intend to follow the national multidisciplinary cancer pain guideline. Yet, only a minority of them perform structural pain assessment of the patient with cancer pain. However, as the response rate was low (27%), the results should be interpreted with caution and cannot be generalized to the entire population of pain specialists in the Netherlands. We recommend that, in the guideline update and implementation programs, more attention be given to thorough assessment of the patient with pain and cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]