Search

Importance: An evidence-practice gap exists for cancer pain management, and cancer pain remains prevalent and disabling., Objectives: To evaluate the capacity of 3 cancer pain guideline implementation strategies to improve pain-related outcomes for patients attending oncology and palliative care outpatient services., Design, Setting, and Participants: A pragmatic, stepped wedge, cluster-randomized, nonblinded, clinical trial was conducted between 2014 and 2019. The clusters were cancer centers in Australia providing oncology and palliative care outpatient clinics. Participants included a consecutive cohort of adult outpatients with advanced cancer and a worst pain severity score of 2 or more out of 10 on a numeric rating scale (NRS). Data were collected between August 2015 and May 2019. Data were analyzed July to October 2019 and reanalyzed November to December 2021., Interventions: Guideline implementation strategies at the cluster, health professional, and patient levels introduced with the support of a clinical champion., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary measure of effect was the percentage of participants initially screened as having moderate to severe worst pain (NRS ≥ 5) who experienced a clinically important improvement of 30% or more 1 week later. Secondary outcomes included mean average pain, patient empowerment, fidelity to the intervention, and quality of life and were measured in all participants with a pain score of 2 or more 10 at weeks 1, 2, and 4., Results: Of 8099 patients screened at 6 clusters, 1564 were eligible, and 359 were recruited during the control phase (mean [SD] age, 64.2 [12.1] years; 196 men [55%]) and 329 during the intervention phase (mean [SD] age, 63.6 [12.7] years; 155 men [47%]), with no significant differences between phases on baseline measures. The mean (SD) baseline worst pain scores were 5.0 (2.6) and 4.9 (2.6) for control and intervention phases, respectively. The mean (SD) baseline average pain scores were 3.5 (2.1) for both groups. For the primary outcome, the proportions of participants with a 30% or greater reduction in a pain score of 5 or more of 10 at baseline were similar in the control and intervention phases (31 of 280 participants [11.9%] vs 30 of 264 participants [11.8%]; OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.79-1.60; P = .51). No significant differences were found in secondary outcomes between phases. Fidelity to the intervention was low., Conclusions and Relevance: A suite of implementation strategies was insufficient to improve pain-related outcomes for outpatients with cancer-related pain. Further evaluation is needed to determine the required clinical resources needed to enable wide-scale uptake of the fundamental elements of cancer pain care. Ongoing quality improvement activities should be supported to improve sustainability.

Background: Pain in people with cancer is common but often under-recognized and under-treated. Guidelines can improve the quality of pain care, but need targeted strategies to support implementation., Aim: To test the feasibility of two service-level strategies for supporting guideline implementation: a screening system and medical record audit., Design: Multimethods., Setting: One oncology outpatient service, and one palliative care outpatient and inpatient service., Participants: Patients with advanced cancer., Methods: Patients were screened in the waiting room with a modified version of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System-revised either electronically or in paper-based format. Feasibility indicated the percentage of patients successfully screened from the total number attending the services. An audit assessed adherence to key indicators of pain assessment and management. Feasibility thresholds were set at 75% incidence for screening and a median of 30 minutes per patient for audit., Results: Of 452 patient visits, 95% (n = 429) were successfully screened, 34% (n = 155) electronically and 61% (n = 274) paper-based. Electronic pain screening was technically challenging and time-intensive for nurses. Thirty-one patients consented to have their records audited. The median audit time was 37.5 minutes (range 10-120 minutes). Variability arose from the number and type of record (outpatient or inpatient). Adherence to indicators varied from 63% (pain assessment at first presentation) to 94% (regular pain assessment and medication prescribed at regular intervals)., Conclusions: This study confirmed the need to implement evidence-based guidelines for cancer pain and generated useful insights into the feasibility of pain screening and audit., (Crown Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: More than half of all cancer patients experience unrelieved pain. Culture can significantly affect patients' cancer pain-related beliefs and behaviors. Little is known about cultural impact on Chinese cancer patients' pain management. The objective of this review was to describe pain management experiences of cancer patients from Chinese backgrounds and to identify barriers affecting their pain management., Method: A systematic review was conducted adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Studies were included if they reported pain management experiences of adult cancer patients from Chinese backgrounds. Five databases were searched for peer-reviewed articles published in English or Chinese journals between1990 and 2015. The quality of included studies was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institution's appraisal tools., Results: Of 3,904 identified records, 23 articles met criteria and provided primary data from 6,110 patients. Suboptimal analgesic use, delays in receiving treatment, reluctance to report pain, and/or poor adherence to prescribed analgesics contributed to the patients' inadequate pain control. Patient-related barriers included fatalism, desire to be good, low pain control belief, pain endurance beliefs, and negative effect beliefs. Patients and family shared barriers about fear of addiction and concerns on analgesic side effects and disease progression. Health professional-related barriers were poor communication, ineffective management of pain, and analgesic side effects. Healthcare system-related barriers included limited access to analgesics and/or after hour pain services and lack of health insurance.Significance of resultsChinese cancer patients' misconceptions regarding pain and analgesics may present as the main barriers to optimal pain relief. Findings of this review may inform health interventions to improve cancer pain management outcomes for patients from Chinese backgrounds. Future studies on patients' nonpharmacology intervention-related experiences are required to inform multidisciplinary and biopsychosocial approaches for culturally appropriate pain management.

Aim: To develop clinical practice guidelines for screening, assessing and managing cancer pain in Australian adults., Methods: This three-phase project utilized the ADAPTE approach to adapt international cancer pain guidelines for the Australian setting. A Working Party was established to define scope, screen guidelines for adaptation and develop recommendations to support better cancer pain control through screening, assessment, pharmacological and non-pharmacological management, and patient education. Recommendations with limited evidence were referred to Expert Panels for advice before the draft guidelines were opened for public consultation via the Cancer Council Australia Cancer Guidelines Wiki platform in late 2012. All comments were reviewed by the Working Party and the guidelines were revised accordingly., Results: Screening resulted in six international guidelines being included for adaptation - those developed by the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (2008), National Health Service Quality Improvement Scotland (2009), National Comprehensive Cancer Network (2012), European Society of Medical Oncology (2011), European Association for Palliative Care (2011, 2012) and National Institute of Clinical Excellence (2012). Guideline adaptation resulted in 55 final recommendations. The guidelines were officially launched in November 2013., Conclusion: International guidelines can be efficiently reconfigured for local contexts using the ADAPTE approach. Availability of the guidelines via the Cancer Council Australia Wiki is intended to promote uptake and enable recommendations to be kept up to date. Resources to support implementation will also be made available via the Wiki if found to be effective by a randomized controlled trial commencing in 2015., (© 2015 Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd.)

Introduction: Idiopathic testicular/groin pain can be a difficult entity for children, their families, and caregivers. The role of interdisciplinary pain management has previously been demonstrated in treating chronic orchialgia at the present pediatric pain clinic., Objective: To evaluate the role of interdisciplinary pain management in managing refractory orchialgia. It was hypothesized that children with refractory orchialgia might respond well. Interdisciplinary care was defined as that which crosses two medical disciplines such as a surgical specialty and specialist in analgesia., Subjects and Methods: Pediatric patients were identified who were: ≥ 10 years old; evaluated in the pediatric urology clinic between 2002 and 2012; were diagnosed wtih ICD code 608.9 or had the diagnosis of male genital disorder NOS. Children were included if they presented with orchialgia without an identifiable cause and failed conservative management (rest, scrotal support, Sitz bath, timed voiding, constipation avoidance) including conventional anti-nociceptive analgesics (acetaminophen, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids). Patient electronic medical records were reviewed retrospectively., Results: Twenty-two children met inclusion criteria. Mean age was 13.7 years (range 10-17). Nearly half (45%) of the children had chronic medical conditions such as asthma, allergies, and obesity. Twenty-one of the 22 children were referred to the pediatric pain clinic; 15 were evaluated, and one refused treatment. All children evaluated in the pediatric pain clinic were initially offered an empiric anti-neuropathic anti-convulsant (i.e. gabapentin) and/or an anti-depressant (i.e. amitriptyline) before being offered a nerve block. Of the 14 children accepting treatment in the pediatric pain clinic, six were treated solely with an empiric anti-neuropathic anti-convulsant and/or anti-depressant; eight received medications followed by nerve block (seven ilioinguinal-iliohypogastric blocks, one spinal and ilioinguinal-iliohypogastric block) (see Fig. 1). A total of eight of the 14 children (57%) treated by the pain clinic had resolution of pain, with 50% of those treated with medications alone (three out of six children) responding (two responding to gabapentin and a tricyclic antidepressant, one to gabapentin alone); and five out of eight (63%) treated with medications and then nerve block (ilioinguinal-iliohypogastric block) responding. Of the eight children undergoing nerve block, five required more than one block. The time between each block ranged from 4 to 22.6 weeks. Response to nerve block required an average of 1.4 procedures (range 1-2); mean follow-up after nerve block was 2.4 months (range 0.1-4.8)., Discussion: Children with refractory orchialgia often have comorbidities that suggest a multidisciplinary approach would be useful for treating them. The present study found that the majority of children with refractory orchialgia treated in the pediatric pain clinic responded to management. Major limitations, however, included small cohort size and short follow-up, particularly in those children undergoing nerve block. There was also no objective assessment of pain improvement or improvement in quality of life, which could be rectified with a prospective study., Conclusion: Collaboration and early referral for interdisciplinary pain management as one of these multidisciplinary approaches may help to coordinate care and ease patient suffering., (Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Aims: Cancer pain continues to be undertreated in up to half of cases, despite the availability of evidence-based guidelines. This study aimed to: (i) identify barriers and facilitators to adult cancer pain assessment and management, as perceived by Australian health professionals; (ii) establish the perceived need for new Australian guidelines and implementation strategy; (iii) identify which guidelines are used; (iv) identify barriers and facilitators to guideline use. This article focuses on the perceptions of responding oncologists., Methods: A cross-sectional survey was administered online. Invitations were circulated via peak bodies and clinical leaders. Comments were coded independently by two researchers., Results: In all 76 oncologists self-reported high concordance with evidence-based recommendations, except validated pain scales. Perceived barriers to pain management included insufficient non-pharmacological interventions, access to /coordination between services, and time. Only 22 percent of respondents reported using pain guidelines. Perceived barriers to guideline use included lack of access, awareness and any single standard. Respondents were generally supportive of new Australian guidelines and especially an implementation strategy., Conclusion: Barriers to evidence-based practice and guideline use identified by our survey might be addressed via a clinical pathway that gives step-by-step guidance on evidence-based practice along with a framework for evaluation. Particular attention should be paid to promoting use of validated scales, patient education and non-pharmacological interventions, training of an appropriately skilled workforce and improving care coordination. Challenges are discussed., (© 2012 Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd.)

Purpose: Multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses have identified the effectiveness of patient education in improving cancer pain management. However, the mechanisms by which patient education improves pain outcomes are uncertain, as are the optimal delivery, content, timing, frequency, and duration. This review provides best-bet recommendations based on available evidence to guide service managers and clinicians in developing a patient education program., Methods: We used patient-centered care, self-management, coaching, and a behavior change wheel as lenses through which to consider the evidence for elements of patient education most likely to be effective within the context of other strategies for overcoming barriers to cancer pain assessment and management., Results: The evidence suggests that optimal strategies include those that are patient-centered and tailored to individual needs, are embedded within health professional-patient communication and therapeutic relationships, empower patients to self-manage and coordinate their care, and are routinely integrated into standard cancer care. An approach that integrates patient education with processes and systems to ensure implementation of key standards for pain assessment and management and education of health professionals has been shown to be most effective., Conclusion: Patient education is effective in reducing cancer pain and should be standard practice in all settings. For optimal results, patient education should be integrated with other strategies for implementing evidence-based, person-centered care and overcoming barriers at the levels of patient, provider, and health system., (© 2014 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Purpose: Previous systematic reviews have found patient education to be moderately efficacious in decreasing the intensity of cancer pain, but variation in results warrants analysis aimed at identifying which strategies are optimal., Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken using a theory-based approach to classifying and comparing educational interventions for cancer pain. The reference lists of previous reviews and MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and CENTRAL were searched in May 2012. Studies had to be published in a peer-reviewed English language journal and compare the effect on cancer pain intensity of education with usual care. Meta-analyses used standardized effect sizes (ES) and a random effects model. Subgroup analyses compared intervention components categorized using the Michie et al. (Implement Sci 6:42, 2011) capability, opportunity, and motivation behavior (COM-B) model., Results: Fifteen randomized controlled trials met the criteria. As expected, meta-analysis identified a small-moderate ES favoring education versus usual care (ES, 0.27 [-0.47, -0.07]; P = 0.007) with substantial heterogeneity (I² = 71 %). Subgroup analyses based on the taxonomy found that interventions using "enablement" were efficacious (ES, 0.35 [-0.63, -0.08]; P = 0.01), whereas those lacking this component were not (ES, 0.18 [-0.46, 0.10]; P = 0.20). However, the subgroup effect was nonsignificant (P = 0.39), and heterogeneity was not reduced. Factoring in the variable of individualized versus non-individualized influenced neither efficacy nor heterogeneity., Conclusions: The current meta-analysis follows a trend in using theory to understand the mechanisms of complex interventions. We suggest that future efforts focus on interventions that target patient self-efficacy. Authors are encouraged to report comprehensive details of interventions and methods to inform synthesis, replication, and refinement.

Background: Cancer pain continues to be undertreated, despite the availability of evidence-based guidelines. The Australian National Pain Strategy identified establishment of systems and guidelines to adequately manage cancer pain as a high priority., Objectives: This study aimed to identify barriers and facilitators to adult cancer pain assessment and management as perceived by Australian health professionals; establish the perceived need for new Australian guidelines and implementation strategies; identify which guidelines are used; and identify barriers and facilitators to guideline use. This article focuses on the perceptions of responding palliative care physicians., Design: A cross-sectional survey was administered online., Participants: Invitations were circulated via peak bodies and clinical leaders. Comments were coded independently by two researchers., Results: Ninety-two palliative care physicians responded to the survey; 39% of the national total. The majority reported barriers to pain management, including insufficient access to nonpharmacologic interventions, poor coordination between services, and management challenges posed by comorbidities. Forty-five percent reported using pain guidelines, most commonly the Australian Therapeutic Guidelines-Palliative Care. Respondents were largely supportive of the development of new Australian guidelines and implementation strategies, in particular any offering advice on specific cases of cancer pain (e.g., neuropathic), patient self-management resources, assessment of patient priorities, and disciplinary roles., Conclusion: Barriers to evidence-based practice identified by our survey might be addressed via strategies to support decision making and coordination of care (e.g., a clinical pathway). Particular attention should be paid to promoting access to nonpharmacologic interventions and patient education, and improving referral and care coordination.

Context: Cancer pain is a common, burdensome problem, which is not well managed despite evidence-based guidelines., Objectives: To develop insights for managing barriers and optimizing facilitators to adult cancer pain assessment and management within a comprehensive framework of patient care., Methods: We undertook a systematic review and synthesis of qualitative studies. Medline, PsycINFO, Embase, AMED, CINAHL, and Sociological Abstracts were searched from May 20 to 26, 2011. To be included, the articles had to be published in a peer-reviewed journal since 2000; written in English; and report original qualitative studies on the perspectives of patients, their significant others, or health care providers. Article quality was rated using the checklist of Kitto et al. Thematic synthesis followed a three-stage approach using Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre-Reviewer 4 software: 1) free line-by-line coding of "Results," 2) organization into "descriptive" themes, and 3) development of "analytical" themes informative to our objective. At Stage 3, a conceptual framework was selected from the peer-reviewed literature according to prima facie "fit" for descriptive themes., Results: Of 659 articles screened, 70 met the criteria, reporting 65 studies with 48 patient, 19 caregiver, and 21 health care provider samples. Authors rarely reported reflexivity or negative cases. Mead and Bower's model of patient-centered care accommodated 85% of the descriptive themes; 12% more related to the caregiver and service/system factors. Three themes could not be accommodated., Conclusion: Findings highlight the need to integrate patient/family education within improved communication, individualize care, use more nonpharmacological strategies, empower patients/families to self-manage pain, and reorganize multidisciplinary roles around patient-centered care and outcomes. These conclusions require validation via consensus and intervention trials., (Copyright © 2013 U.S. Cancer Pain Relief Committee. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The article discusses the experience of patient distress due to untreated cancer symptoms. It references an article by M. R. Watts published in a 2014 issue of the journal regarding evidence-based strategies for cancer pain management including screening for pain, regular and breakthrough analgesia, comprehensive pain assessment, patient education and prevention of adverse opioid effects. Also mentioned are guidelines of Cancer Council Australia and risks related to transition care.