Assessing the need for arthritis training among paid carers in UK residential care homes: A focus group and interview study

Pain management for people with dementia: a cross-setting systematic review and meta-ethnography

Background

Pain management for people with dementia is challenging. There is limited understanding on the experiences of pain management from people with dementia, but also from those who support them. This study synthesised the qualitative evidence to explore the perspectives of people with dementia, their family, friends, carers and healthcare professionals to pain management.

Methods

A systematic literature review was undertaken of published and unpublished literature databases (to 01 November 2021). All qualitative research studies reporting the perspectives of people with dementia, their family, friends, carers and healthcare professionals to managing pain were included. Eligible studies were appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) qualitative appraisal tool. A meta-ethnography analysis approach was adopted, with findings assessed against the GRADE-CERQual framework.

Results

Of the 3994 citations screened, 33 studies were eligible. Seven themes were identified from the data. There was moderate evidence from six studies indicating inequity of pain management for people with dementia. There was moderate evidence from 22 studies regarding anxieties on cascading pain information. There was moderate evidence from nine studies that familiarisation of the person with pain, their preferences, routines and behaviours were key factors to better pain management. Consistently, carers and healthcare professionals had a low opinion of the management of pain for people with dementia, with tensions over the 'best' treatment options to offer. This was associated with poor training and understanding on how pain 'should' be managed.

Conclusion

The findings highlight the challenges faced by people with dementia and pain, and those who support them. Improvements in education for people who support these individuals would be valuable across health and social care pathways. Supporting family members and relatives on pain experiences and treatment options could improve awareness to improve quality of life for people with dementia and pain and those who support them.

Informal caregiver training for people with chronic pain in musculoskeletal services (JOINT SUPPORT): protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Chronic musculoskeletal (bone, joint or muscle) pain is disabling. People with it frequently have difficulties in managing everyday activities. Individuals may rely on family members or friends to support them. These people are known as informal caregivers. No interventions have previously addressed the health needs of people with chronic musculoskeletal pain and their caregivers. In response, the JOINT SUPPORT programme was developed. In this study, we will assess the feasibility and acceptability of conducting a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial (RCT) to test the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the JOINT SUPPORT programme to support these individuals.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This will be a mixed-methods feasibility RCT. We will recruit 80 patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain with their informal caregivers. Patients will be randomised to usual National Health Service (NHS) care OR usual NHS care plus a caregiver-patient dyad training programme (JOINT SUPPORT). This programme comprises of five, 1-hour, group-based sessions for patients and caregivers, delivered by trained physiotherapists or occupational therapists. It includes developing skills in: understanding pain, pacing, graded activity, fear avoidance and goal-setting, understanding benefits of physical activity and skills in medication management. This will be re-enforced with a workbook. After the group-based sessions, patients and caregivers will be supported through three telephone sessions with a therapist. Data collected at baseline and 3 months will include: screening logs, intervention logs, fidelity checklists and clinical outcomes on quality of life, physical and emotional outcomes, adverse events and resource use. Qualitative research with 24 patient-caregiver dyads and 12 healthcare professionals will explore the acceptability of trial processes. Stop-go criteria will inform the progression to a full trial.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval was obtained on 22 February 2022 (National Research Ethics Committee Number: 22/NW/0015). Results will be reported at conferences, peer-review publications and across social media channels.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN78169443.

Caregiving for older people living with chronic pain: analysis of the English longitudinal study of ageing and health survey for England

Background

Chronic pain is a disabling condition. Many people with chronic pain seek informal support for everyday activities of daily living (ADL). However, there remains uncertainty on the type of people with chronic pain who access this support, what types of support they need and who provides such support. The purpose of this analysis was to answer these uncertainties.

Methods

Data from the Health Survey for England (HSE) and English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA) were accessed. People who reported chronic pain (moderate or above for minimum of 12 months) were identified. From these cohorts, we determined if individuals self-reported receiving informal care. Data on caregiver profiles and caregiving activities were reported through descriptive statistics. Logistic regression analyses were performed to compare health status outcomes between people with pain who received and who did not receive informal care.

Results

2178 people with chronic pain from the ELSA cohort and 571 from the HSE cohort were analysed. People who received care were frequently female, older aged with several medical morbidities including musculoskeletal diseases such as arthritis. People with chronic pain received informal care for several diverse tasks. Most frequently these related to instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) such as shopping and housework. They were most frequently provided by partners or their children. Although they reported greater disability and symptoms ( p < 0.001), people who received care did not report differences in health status, loneliness or wellbeing ( p = 0.27; p = 0.46).

Conclusions

Whilst it may be possible to characterise people living in chronic pain who receive informal care, there is some uncertainty on the impact of informal caregiving on their health and wellbeing. Consideration should now be made on how best to support both care recipients and informal caregivers, to ensure their health and quality of life is promoted whilst living with chronic pain.

Psychometric properties of pain measurements for people living with dementia: a COSMIN systematic review

PURPOSE

Detecting pain in older people with dementia is challenging. Consequentially, pain is often under-reported and under-treated. There remains uncertainty over what measures should be promoted for use to assess pain in this population. The purpose of this paper is to answer this question.

METHODS

A search of clinical trials registered on the ClinicalTrial.gov and ISRCTN registries was performed to identify outcome measures used to assess pain in people with dementia. Following this, a systematic review of published and unpublished databases was performed to 01 November 2021 to identify papers assessing the psychometric properties of these identified measures. Each paper and measure was assessed against the COSMIN checklist. A best evidence synthesis analysis was performed to assess the level of evidence for each measure.

RESULTS

From 188 clinical trials, nine outcome measures were identified. These included: Abbey Pain Scale, ALGOPLUS, DOLOPLUS-2, Facial Action Coding System, MOBID-2, self-reported pain through the NRS or VAS/thermometer or Philadelphia Geriatric Pain Intensity Scale, PACSLAC/PACSLAC-2, Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia (PAINAD), and Checklist for non-verbal pain behavior (CNPI). From these, 51 papers (5924 people with dementia) were identified assessing the psychometric properties of these measures. From these, there was strong- and moderate-level evidence to support the use of the facial action coding system, PACSLAC and PACSLAC-II, CNPI, DOLOPLUS-2, ALGOPLUS, MOBID, and MOBID-2 tools for the assessment of pain with people living with dementia.

CONCLUSION

Whilst these reflect measurement tools used in research, further consideration on how these reflect clinical practice should be considered.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION

CRD42021282032.

Effectiveness of caregiver interventions for people with cancer and non-cancer-related chronic pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

People with chronic pain frequently have difficulties in completing everyday tasks to maintain independence and quality of life. Informal caregivers may provide support to these individuals. However, the effectiveness of interventions to train and support these individuals in caregiving remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the evidence to determine the effectiveness of caregiver interventions to support informal caregivers of people with chronic pain.

METHODS

A systematic review of published and unpublished literature databases was undertaken (9 April 2021). Trials reporting clinical outcomes of caregiver interventions to train informal caregivers to support community-dwelling people with chronic pain were included. Meta-analysis was undertaken and each outcome was assessed using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven studies were eligible (N = 3427 patients). Twenty-four studies assessed patients with cancer pain and three with musculoskeletal pain. No other patient groups were identified. There was very low-quality evidence that caregiver interventions were beneficial for caregiver health-related quality of life (standardised mean difference = 0.26, 95% confidence interval = 0.01 to 0.52; N = 231). There was moderate-quality evidence that caregiving interventions were effective in reducing pain in the short-term (standardised mean difference = 0.16, 95% confidence interval = -0.29 to -0.03). There was low-quality evidence that caregiving interventions had no beneficial effect over usual care for psychological outcomes, fatigue, coping or physical function in the long-term.

CONCLUSION

Caregiving interventions may be effective for patients and caregivers but only in the shorter-term and for a limited number of outcomes. There is insufficient evidence examining the effectiveness of caregiver interventions for people with non-cancer-related pain.