Context. In a previous retrospective study, cancer pain management was effective in 47.5% of a cohort assessed after 3 months in a pain clinic at Siriraj Hospital. New guidelines were established, including a multidisciplinary approach, availability of pain interventions, and palliative care referral. Objectives. The objective was to examine the effectiveness of the updated approach. Methods. With IRB approval, outpatients with cancer were enrolled from January to December 2018. Assessments were recorded at baseline and three consecutive visits (BL, FU1, FU2, and FU3), including Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS), side effects, and analgesic use. The primary outcome was a favorable response, defined as an NRS decrease more than 30% or NRS <4. Secondary outcomes included trends over time in BPI, ESAS, side effects, and analgesic use. Pain response predictors at FU3 were analyzed using logistic regression. Results. Among 150 patients, 72 (48%) completed follow-ups. Of these, 61% achieved a favorable response at FU3. Pain interference diminished at all visits relative to baseline ( p < 0.05 ). Median morphine equivalent daily dosage (MEDD) at BL was 20 mg/day, with a statistically significant, but clinically modest increase to 26.4 mg/day at FU3. Radiation therapy during pain care was a predictor of pain responders. Conclusion. The current Siriraj multidisciplinary approach provided effective relief of pain and stabilization of other cancer-related symptoms. Radiation therapy during pain care can be used to predict pain outcomes. Ongoing improvement domains were identified and considered in the context of cultural, economic, and geographic factors.
Objective: Patients’ lack of knowledge of cancer pain management affects pain outcomes. This study compared the effectiveness of cancer pain management achieved in a previous retrospective study (“P-group”), in which hospitalized cancer pain individuals received no pain education, with the pain management achieved by 2 study groups. One group received pain management information via video sessions (“V-group”) and the other via face-to-face coaching (“F-group”). The study’s secondary aims were to compare the 2 interventions’ psychological, quality-of-life, and opioid-consumption impacts. Materials and Methods: This single-blinded, randomized, controlled trial enrolled hospitalized cancer pain patients aged between 18 and 70 with an Eastern Clinical Oncology Group performance status < 4. They were assigned to V- and F-groups to receive information on managing cancer pain. “Successful pain control” was defined as “no to mild pain” or a numerical rating scale score < 4 on Day 6. Pain intensity and opioid consumption (morphine-equivalent daily dosage) were recorded daily from baseline to Day 6. Psychological status (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) and quality of life (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–General) were assessed at baseline and Day 6. Results: Fifty-nine participants were analyzed (V-group: 31; F-group: 28). Both groups had significantly higher successful pain outcomes than the P-group (P < .001). The V- and F-groups had no significant differences in successful pain control (20 [65%] vs 19 [68%]; P = .787), psychological effects, quality of life, or opioid consumption. Conclusions: Video sessions are an alternative means of educating hospitalized cancer pain patients and reducing healthcare providers’ workloads.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.