Search

Purpose: The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of pain neuroscience education compared to biomedical pain education after breast cancer surgery on (1) work status, (2) time until work resumption, and (3) change in return-to-work expectations up to 18 months post-surgery. Methods: Participants were randomly assigned to either pain neuroscience education (intervention group) or biomedical pain education (control group) in addition to a standard physical therapy program after surgery for breast cancer. The first four months following surgery, one to two physiotherapy sessions and three educational sessions were scheduled. After, two educational sessions and two physiotherapy sessions were held at six and eight months postoperatively. All outcomes were assessed at four, six, eight, 12 and 18 months postoperatively. Results: At 12 months, in the intervention group, 71% of the women returned to work compared to 53% in the control group (18% points difference, 95%CI:-0.1 to 35;p = 0.07). At 18 months, the differences decreased to 9% points, 95%CI:-26 to 7;p = 0.35). Neither time until work resumption (p = 0.46) nor change in estimation of own ability to return to work up to 18 months postoperatively (p = 0.21) significantly differed between both groups. Conclusion: No significant differences were found regarding return to work outcomes between women receiving pain neuroscience education versus biomedical pain education after breast cancer surgery. Further research is warranted to explore the potential role of pain neuroscience education in return-to-work interventions following breast cancer surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pain after breast cancer surgery is a common and disabling problem. A reliable and valid questionnaire to assess pain-related disability is the Pain Disability Index (0–70). However, properties of the Dutch version (PDI-DLV) have never been investigated in this population. To assess psychometric properties of the PDI-DLV after breast cancer surgery. For reliability, relative and absolute reliability were calculated with a one-week test–retest interval, as well as internal consistency. Moreover, content and construct validity were examined to evaluate validity. One hundred twenty-three women were included. Relative reliability was good (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.80). Standard error of measurement and minimal detectable change (absolute reliability) were 5.57 and 15.45 points, respectively. The mean difference between two measurements was −1.98 points, with 95% limits of agreement equal to 13.19 and −17.15. The within-subjects coefficient of variation was 59%. Internal consistency was confirmed (α = 0.87). The PDI-DLV was scored as understandable and complete (content validity). Construct validity was supported by confirmation of more than 75% of the tested hypotheses and of the one-factor model. The PDI-DLV is a valid questionnaire to assess pain-related disability 1 year after breast cancer surgery. Although absolute reliability is disputable, its good relative reliability allows evaluating changes between subjects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Current approaches to the management of pain due to amputation are presented by two Spanish pain specialists with additional commentaries on care of such patients by pain specialists from Belgium and the United Kingdom. Contemporary pharmacotherapy and nondrug interventions are described. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: In chronic non-malignant pain, medication is often used as an important cornerstone of the treatment. Medication non-adherence is a frequent problem in chronic conditions. In patients with chronic non-malignant pain, medication non-adherence ranges between 8% and 53%. Two types of non-adherence can be identified: underuse and overuse of pain medication. Objective: To examine determinants of both medication underuse and overuse non-adherence in patients with chronic non-malignant pain, with a focus on factors related to all five categories of determinants of medication non-adherence simultaneously, as proposed by the WHO. Design: A multicenter cross-sectional study. Settings: Three multidisciplinary outpatient pain centers in Flanders, Belgium. Participants: A total of 265 patients with chronic non-malignant pain participated in the study. Methods: Medication non-adherence was assessed by a self-report interview. Associations of socio-economic, treatment related, condition related, patient related and health care system related factors with medication underuse or overuse were determined by building two separate multivariable binary logistic regression models. Results: Thirty eight percent of the patients were fully adherent. Based on multivariable analyses, underuse was significantly associated with more prescribed analgesics (OR=2.303), self-medication (OR=4.679), lower pain intensity (OR=0.821), active coping strategies (OR=1.132) and lack of information (OR=0.268). Overuse of medication was associated with more prescribed analgesics (OR=1.645) and current smoking (OR=2.744). Conclusion: Patients underusing or overusing their medication do have a different risk profile. The set of determinants of non-adherence, proposed by WHO, is suitable to study determinants of underuse, but the framework is less suitable to study determinants of medication overuse. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Chronic pain is currently under-diagnosed and under-treated, partly because doctors' training in pain management is often inadequate. This situation looks certain to become worse with the rapidly increasing elderly population unless there is a wider adoption of best pain management practice. This paper reviews current knowledge of the development of chronic pain and the multidisciplinary team approach to pain therapy. The individual topics covered include nociceptive and neuropathic pain, peripheral sensitization, central sensitization, the definition and diagnosis of chronic pain, the biopsychosocial model of pain and the multidisciplinary approach to pain management. This last section includes an example of the implementation of a multidisciplinary approach in Belgium and describes the various benefits it offers; for example, the early multidimensional diagnosis of chronic pain and rapid initiation of evidence-based therapy based on an individual treatment plan. The patient also receives continuity of care, while pain relief is accompanied by improvements in physical functioning, quality of life and emotional stress. Other benefits include decreases in catastrophizing, self-reported patient disability, and depression. Improved training in pain management is clearly needed, starting with the undergraduate medical curriculum, and this review is intended to encourage further study by those who manage patients with chronic pain.