Pain medication management processes used by oncology outpatients and family caregivers part I: health systems contexts

The Experience of Complex Pain Dynamics in Oncology Outpatients: A Longitudinal Qualitative Analysis

BACKGROUND

Few qualitative studies of cancer patients' everyday experiences with pain exist within the large body of cancer pain research. Longitudinal qualitative studies are particularly sparse, and no studies have qualitatively described patients' pain experience over time during participation in a self-management intervention.

OBJECTIVE

To longitudinally describe patients' pain experiences during a 10-week pain self-management intervention.

METHODS

This qualitative study was embedded in a randomized controlled trial of a psychoeducational pain management intervention. The data consisted of transcribed audio recordings of each intervention session. An emergent, interpretive approach was used in this longitudinal qualitative analysis.

RESULTS

Forty-two adult patients were included. The analysis revealed the strikingly dynamic nature of individual patient's pain experiences. Multiple facets of pain contributed to its dynamic nature, including pain in changing locations, co-occurring sources of pain, and varying patterns of pain intensity over time. For individual patients, the cumulative effect of these multiple facets resulted in a phenomenon we termed "complex pain dynamics."

CONCLUSION

The results contribute to knowledge about the dynamic nature of cancer patients' pain experiences over a relatively short period. They suggest the need for a new paradigm for management of pain in cancer patients and raise questions about the interpretation of randomized controlled trial results in the absence of qualitative data.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Frequent assessments and reassessments of pain are needed in cancer patients with the ongoing development of highly individualized self-management strategies. A large repertoire of interventions is needed to effectively manage pain in cancer patients over time.

Methodological considerations for the design and implementation of a fully longitudinal mixed methods study

Growing interest is evident in longitudinal mixed methods research, particularly fully longitudinal mixed methods designs in which both quantitative and qualitative data are collected concurrently for the duration of the study. Fully longitudinal mixed methods designs are particularly relevant for research on dynamic phenomena because of their ability to illuminate both quantitative and qualitative dimensions of change in real time as the phenomenon of interest changes. However, these are complex research designs and their data-intense nature makes them potentially burdensome for study participants, challenging for research teams, and costly for funding agencies. Despite growing use, the methodological literature on fully longitudinal mixed methods research is sparse and little guidance is available for researchers considering this approach. We address this gap by describing our experience with the design and implementation of a fully longitudinal mixed methods study of a dynamic phenomenon, namely, family caregiving during cancer treatment. We describe important questions and key decisions confronted while developing the research proposal, proactive strategies for study implementation, and implementation realities encountered while the study was in progress. On the basis of insights gained through real-world experience, we offer three guiding principles for researchers undertaking such a study. First, align the study design with the nature of the dynamics in the phenomenon of interest. Second, plan from the start when and how the integration of the longitudinal quantitative and qualitative data will occur. Third, employ implementation strategies that take into account the practical aspects of repeated contacts with study participants for an extended period.

The Association Between Analgesic Treatment Beliefs and Electronically Monitored Adherence for Cancer Pain

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether clusters based on analgesic treatment beliefs among patients with cancer predict objective analgesic adherence.

SAMPLE & SETTING

207 patients with cancer in the outpatient setting who were aged 18 years or older, self-identified as White or African American, were diagnosed with solid tumor or multiple myeloma, and were prescribed at least one around-the-clock analgesic prescription for reported cancer pain.

METHODS & VARIABLES

This study is a secondary analysis of an existing dataset. General linear modeling with a backward elimination approach was applied to determine whether previously identified analgesic treatment belief clusters, as well as sociodemographic, clinical, and pain variables, were associated with adherence behaviors.

RESULTS

Significant explanatory factors were experiential in nature and included sociodemographic, clinical, and pain-related variables, explaining 21% of the variance in analgesic adherence. Analgesic belief clusters were not predictive of adherence.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING

Future research should examine sociodemographic and other clinical factors, as well as the influence of analgesic treatment beliefs, to better understand adherence behaviors among patients with cancer.

Understanding the Experience of Cancer Pain From the Perspective of Patients and Family Caregivers to Inform Design of an In-Home Smart Health System: Multimethod Approach

Background

Inadequately managed pain is a serious problem for patients with cancer and those who care for them. Smart health systems can help with remote symptom monitoring and management, but they must be designed with meaningful end-user input.

Objective

This study aims to understand the experience of managing cancer pain at home from the perspective of both patients and family caregivers to inform design of the Behavioral and Environmental Sensing and Intervention for Cancer (BESI-C) smart health system.

Methods

This was a descriptive pilot study using a multimethod approach. Dyads of patients with cancer and difficult pain and their primary family caregivers were recruited from an outpatient oncology clinic. The participant interviews consisted of (1) open-ended questions to explore the overall experience of cancer pain at home, (2) ranking of variables on a Likert-type scale (0, no impact; 5, most impact) that may influence cancer pain at home, and (3) feedback regarding BESI-C system prototypes. Qualitative data were analyzed using a descriptive approach to identity patterns and key themes. Quantitative data were analyzed using SPSS; basic descriptive statistics and independent sample t tests were run.

Results

Our sample (n=22; 10 patient-caregiver dyads and 2 patients) uniformly described the experience of managing cancer pain at home as stressful and difficult. Key themes included (1) unpredictability of pain episodes; (2) impact of pain on daily life, especially the negative impact on sleep, activity, and social interactions; and (3) concerns regarding medications. Overall, taking pain medication was rated as the category with the highest impact on a patient’s pain (=4.79), followed by the categories of wellness (=3.60; sleep quality and quantity, physical activity, mood and oral intake) and interaction (=2.69; busyness of home, social or interpersonal interactions, physical closeness or proximity to others, and emotional closeness and connection to others). The category related to environmental factors (temperature, humidity, noise, and light) was rated with the lowest overall impact (=2.51). Patients and family caregivers expressed receptivity to the concept of BESI-C and reported a preference for using a wearable sensor (smart watch) to capture data related to the abrupt onset of difficult cancer pain.

Conclusions

Smart health systems to support cancer pain management should (1) account for the experience of both the patient and the caregiver, (2) prioritize passive monitoring of physiological and environmental variables to reduce burden, and (3) include functionality that can monitor and track medication intake and efficacy; wellness variables, such as sleep quality and quantity, physical activity, mood, and oral intake; and levels of social interaction and engagement. Systems must consider privacy and data sharing concerns and incorporate feasible strategies to capture and characterize rapid-onset symptoms.

A Longitudinal Study of Predictors of Constipation Severity in Oncology Outpatients With Unrelieved Pain

CONTEXT

Although constipation is a common symptom in oncology patients, it often goes unrecognized and untreated. In addition, little is known about characteristics associated with interindividual differences in constipation severity.

OBJECTIVES

To describe prevalence, characteristics, and management of constipation; evaluate interindividual differences in constipation severity over 10 weeks; and identify demographic, clinical, and symptom characteristics associated with higher constipation severity scores.

METHODS

In this prospective, longitudinal study, 175 oncology patients with unrelieved pain were recruited from eight outpatient cancer settings in the U.S. Patients completed demographic and symptom questionnaires at enrollment. Constipation severity was evaluated over 10 weeks using the Constipation Assessment Scale (CAS). Hierarchical linear modeling was used to identify characteristics associated with higher CAS scores.

RESULTS

At enrollment, 70.1% of the patients reported constipation [i.e., CAS score of >2; mean CAS score: 3.72 (±3.11)]. While over the first week of the study patients used one to two constipation treatments per day, a large amount of interindividual variability was found in CAS scores. Higher percentage of days with no bowel movement, higher number of constipation treatments, higher state anxiety scores, and higher analgesic side effects scores were associated with higher CAS scores at enrollment. Higher percentage of days with no bowel movement was associated with interindividual differences in the trajectories of constipation.

CONCLUSION

Our findings underscore the high prevalence of and large amount of interindividual variability in constipation severity. The characteristics associated with worse CAS scores can assist clinicians to identify high-risk patients and initiate prompt interventions.

Psychosocial interventions for informal caregivers of people living with cancer

BACKGROUND

Increasingly, cancer is recognised as a chronic condition with a growing population of informal caregivers providing care for cancer patients. Informal caregiving can negatively affect the health and well-being of caregivers. We need a synthesised account of best evidence to aid decision-making about effective ways to support caregivers for individuals 'living with cancer'.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions designed to improve the quality of life (QoL), physical health and well-being of informal caregivers of people living with cancer compared with usual care.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, ProQuest, Open SIGLE, Web of Science from inception up to January 2018, trial registries and citation lists of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing psychosocial interventions delivered to adult informal caregivers of adults affected by cancer on a group or individual basis with usual care. Psychosocial interventions included non-pharmacological interventions that involved an interpersonal relationship between caregivers and healthcare professionals. We included interventions delivered also to caregiver-patient dyads. Interventions delivered to caregivers of individuals receiving palliative or inpatient care were excluded. Our primary outcome was caregiver QoL. Secondary outcomes included patient QoL, caregiver and patient depression, anxiety, psychological distress, physical health status and intervention satisfaction and adverse effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Pairs of review authors independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted data and conducted 'Risk of bias' assessments. We synthesised findings using meta-analysis, where possible, and reported remaining results in a narrative synthesis.

MAIN RESULTS

Nineteen trials (n = 3, 725) were included in the review. All trials were reported in English and were undertaken in high-income countries. Trials targeted caregivers of patients affected by a number of cancers spanning newly diagnosed patients, patients awaiting treatment, patients who were being treated currently and individuals post-treatment. Most trials delivered interventions to caregiver-patient dyads (predominantly spousal dyads) and there was variation in intervention delivery to groups or individual participants. There was much heterogeneity across interventions though the majority were defined as psycho-educational. All trials were rated as being at 'high risk of bias'.Compared to usual care, psychosocial interventions may improve slightly caregiver QoL immediately post intervention (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 0.53; studies = 2, 265 participants) and may have little to no effect on caregiver QoL at 12 months (SMD 0.14, 95% CI - 0.11 to 0.40; studies = 2, 239 participants) post-intervention (both low-quality evidence).Psychosocial interventions probably have little to no effect on caregiver depression immediately to one-month post-intervention (SMD 0.01, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.15; studies = 9, 702 participants) (moderate-quality evidence). Psychosocial interventions may have little to no effect on caregiver anxiety immediately post-intervention (SMD -0.12, 95 % CI -0.33 to 0.10; studies = 5, 329 participants), depression three-to-six months (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.38; studies = 5. 379 participants) post-intervention and patient QoL six to 12 months (SMD -0.05, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.26; studies = 3, 294 participants) post-intervention (all low-quality evidence). There was uncertainty whether psychosocial interventions improve patient QoL immediately (SMD -0.03, 95 %CI -0.50 to 0.44; studies = 2, 292 participants) or caregiver anxiety three-to-six months (SMD-0.25, 95% CI -0.64 to 0.13; studies = 4, 272 participants) post-intervention (both very low-quality evidence). Two studies which could not be pooled in a meta-analysis for caregiver physical health status found little to no effect immediately post-intervention and a small intervention effect 12 months post-intervention. Caregiver or patient satisfaction or cost-effectiveness of interventions were not assessed in any studies. Interventions demonstrated good feasibility and acceptability.Psychosocial interventions probably have little to no effect on patient physical health status immediately post-intervention (SMD 0.17, 95 % CI -0.07 to 0.41; studies = 4, 461 participants) and patient depression three to six months post-intervention (SMD-0.11, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.12; studies = 6, 534 participants) (both moderate-quality evidence).Psychosocial interventions may have little to no effect on caregiver psychological distress immediately to one-month (SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.42 to 0.26; studies = 3, 134 participants), and seven to 12 months (SMD 0.08, 95% CI -0.42 to 0.58; studies = 2, 62 participants) post-intervention; patient depression immediately (SMD -0.12, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.07; studies = 9, 852 participants); anxiety immediately (SMD -0.13, 95% CI -0.41 to 0.15;studies = 4, 422 participants), and three to six months (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.45 to 0.02; studies = 4, 370 participants); psychological distress immediately (SMD -0.02, 95% CI -0.47 to 0.44; studies = 2, 74 participants) and seven to 12 months (SMD -0.27, 95% CI -0.78 to 0.24; studies = 2, 61 participants); and physical health status six to 12 months (SMD 0.06, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.30; studies = 2, 275 participants) post-intervention (all low-quality evidence).Three trials reported adverse effects associated with the interventions, compared with usual care, including higher distress, sexual function-related distress and lower relationship satisfaction levels for caregivers, higher distress levels for patients, and that some content was perceived as insensitive to some participants.Trials not able to be pooled in a meta-analysis did not tend to report effect size and it was difficult to discern intervention effectiveness. Variable intervention effects were reported for patient and caregiver outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Heterogeneity across studies makes it difficult to draw firm conclusions regarding the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for this population. There is an immediate need for rigorous trials with process evaluations and clearer, detailed intervention descriptions. Cost-effectiveness studies should be conducted alongside future trials.

Self-management toolkit and delivery strategy for end-of-life pain: the mixed-methods feasibility study

BACKGROUND

Pain affects most people approaching the end of life and can be severe for some. Opioid analgesia is effective, but evidence is needed about how best to support patients in managing these medicines.

OBJECTIVES

To develop a self-management support toolkit (SMST) and delivery strategy and to test the feasibility of evaluating this intervention in a future definitive trial.

DESIGN

Phase I - evidence synthesis and qualitative interviews with patients and carers. Phase II - qualitative semistructured focus groups and interviews with patients, carers and specialist palliative care health professionals. Phase III - multicentre mixed-methods single-arm pre-post observational feasibility study.

PARTICIPANTS

Phase I - six patients and carers. Phase II - 15 patients, four carers and 19 professionals. Phase III - 19 patients recruited to intervention that experienced pain, living at home and were treated with strong opioid analgesia. Process evaluation interviews with 13 patients, seven carers and 11 study nurses.

INTERVENTION

Self-Management of Analgesia and Related Treatments at the end of life (SMART) intervention comprising a SMST and a four-step educational delivery approach by clinical nurse specialists in palliative care over 6 weeks.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Recruitment rate, treatment fidelity, treatment acceptability, patient-reported outcomes (such as scores on the Brief Pain Inventory, Self-Efficacy for Managing Chronic Disease Scale, Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale, EuroQol-5 Dimensions, Satisfaction with Information about Medicines Scale, and feasibility of collecting data on health-care resource use for economic evaluation).

RESULTS

Phase I - key themes on supported self-management were identified from evidence synthesis and qualitative interviews. Phase II - the SMST was developed and refined. The delivery approach was nested within a nurse-patient consultation. Phase III - intervention was delivered to 17 (89%) patients, follow-up data at 6 weeks were available on 15 patients. Overall, the intervention was viewed as acceptable and valued. Descriptive analysis of patient-reported outcomes suggested that interference from pain and self-efficacy were likely to be candidates for primary outcomes in a future trial. No adverse events related to the intervention were reported. The health economic analysis suggested that SMART could be cost-effective. We identified key limitations and considerations for a future trial: improve recruitment through widening eligibility criteria, refine the SMST resources content, enhance fidelity of intervention delivery, secure research nurse support at recruiting sites, refine trial procedures (including withdrawal process and data collection frequency), and consider a cluster randomised design with nurse as cluster unit.

LIMITATIONS

(1) The recruitment rate was lower than anticipated. (2) The content of the intervention was focused on strong opioids only. (3) The fidelity of intervention delivery was limited by the need for ongoing training and support. (4) Recruitment sites where clinical research nurse support was not secured had lower recruitment rates. (5) The process for recording withdrawal was not sufficiently detailed. (6) The number of follow-up visits was considered burdensome for some participants. (7) The feasibility trial did not have a control arm or assess randomisation processes.

CONCLUSIONS

A future randomised controlled trial is feasible and acceptable.

STUDY AND TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014013572; Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN35327119; and National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Portfolio registration 162114.

FUNDING

The NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme.

Algorithm-based decision support for symptom self-management among adults with Cancer: results of usability testing

BACKGROUND

It is essential that cancer patients understand anticipated symptoms, how to self-manage these symptoms, and when to call their clinicians. However, patients are often ill-prepared to manage symptoms at home. Clinical decision support (CDS) is a potentially innovative way to provide information to patients where and when they need it. The purpose of this project was to design and evaluate a simulated model of an algorithm-based CDS program for self-management of cancer symptoms.

METHODS

This study consisted of three phases; development of computable algorithms for self-management of cancer symptoms using a modified ADAPTE process, evaluation of a simulated model of the CDS program, and identification of design objectives and lessons learned from the evaluation of patient-centered CDS. In phase 1, algorithms for pain, constipation and nausea/vomiting were developed by an expert panel. In phase 2, we conducted usability testing of a simulated symptom assessment and management intervention for self-care (SAMI-Self-Care) CDS program involving focus groups, interviews and surveys with cancer patients, their caregivers and clinicians. The Acceptability E-scale measured acceptability of the program. In phase 3, we developed design objectives and identified barriers to uptake of patient-centered CDS based on the data gathered from stakeholders.

RESULTS

In phase 1, algorithms were reviewed and approved through a consensus meeting and majority vote. In phase 2, 24 patients & caregivers and 13 clinicians participated in the formative evaluation. Iterative changes were made in a simulated SAMI-Self-Care CDS program. Acceptability scores were high among patients, caregivers and clinicians. In phase 3, we formulated CDS design objectives, which included: 1) ensure patient safety, 2) communicate clinical concepts effectively, 3) promote communication with clinicians, 4) support patient activation, and 5) facilitate navigation and use. We identified patient barriers and clinician concerns to using CDS for symptom self-management, which were consistent with the chronic care model, a theoretical framework used to enhance patient-clinician communication and patient self-management.

CONCLUSION

Patient safety and tool navigation were critical features of CDS for patient self-management. Insights gleaned from this study may be used to inform the development of CDS resources for symptom self-management in patients with other chronic conditions.

Enhancing Communication Related to Symptom Management Through Plain Language

CONTEXT

Symptom management is a key dimension of palliative care. In addition to aspects such as assessment and pharmacological management of symptoms, professionals also require communication skills to effectively manage symptoms in serious illness.

OBJECTIVES

Application of the Plain Language Planner for Palliative Care(©), a provider tool for communicating about medication and symptoms using plain language, was tested.

METHODS

Approximately 75% of the 155 health care professionals, mostly nurses, who participated in a before-and-after educational activity about the tool, provided written communication explanations using one of three medication-symptom pairs: senna for constipation, amitriptyline for nerve pain, and lorazepam for anxiety. Responses were coded for plain language characteristics: active voice, second person, use of jargon, brief sentences, reading level, and easy to understand data phrasing. Frequency counts for coding categories were calculated and compared across medication-symptom pairs before and after the education session.

RESULTS

A comparison between written responses before and after the education session showed improvement in the use of plain language. Overall, plain language scores were highest for communication about senna (81%), followed by amitriptyline (72%) and lorazepam (77%). Across all three medication-symptom pairs, the greatest improvement in the use of plain language occurred in the use of jargon.

CONCLUSION

Provider training with the tool produced increased plain language. Use of the tool in provider education shows promise in increasing the health literacy for patients and families regarding symptom management.

Managing Medications During Home Hospice Cancer Care: The Needs of Family Caregivers

CONTEXT

Family caregivers (FCGs) are often at the frontline of symptom management for patients with advanced illness in home hospice. FCGs' cognitive, social, and technical skills in complex medication management have been well studied in the literature; however, few studies have tested existing frameworks in clinical cases in home hospice.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to assess the applicability of caregiver medication management skills framework by Lau et al. in the context of family caregiving in home hospice to further the understanding of FCGs' essential medication management skills.

METHODS

This was a secondary data analysis of 18 audio recorded home hospice visits transcribed verbatim; deductive content analysis of caregiver-nurse interactions was conducted. The target sample included FCGs of hospice patients who had cancer diagnoses in hospices located in the greater urban area of the Rocky Mountain West. Caregiver medication management skills were identified and categorized into the five domains of caregiver expertise. Exemplars of each domain were identified.

RESULTS

An average of four medications (SD = 3.5) was discussed at each home hospice visit. Medication knowledge skills were observed in most home hospice visits (15 of 18). Teamwork skills were observed in 11 of 18 cases, followed by organizational and personhood skills (10 of 18). Symptom management skills occurred in 12 of 18 cases. An additional two subconstructs of the personhood domain-1) advocacy for the caregiver and 2) skills in discontinuing medications-were proposed.

CONCLUSION

These findings support framework by Lau et al. for caregiver medication management skills and expands on the existing domains proposed. Future interventions to assess FCGs' skills are recommended.

Characteristics and associations of pain intensity in patients referred to a specialist cancer pain clinic

Uncontrolled cancer pain (CP) has the ability to impair quality of life and interfere with daily activities. Poor CP management is consistently attributed to inadequate assessment and clarification of pain. The authors of this study identified the need to understand the nature of CP and inform evidence-based strategies for its assessment and management. The study aimed to describe the characteristics of CP and to determine predictors of pain intensity with patients referred to a CP clinic in Portugal.

BACKGROUND:

Uncontrolled cancer pain (CP) may impair quality of life. Given the multidimensional nature of CP, its poor control is often attributed to poor assessment and classification.

OBJECTIVES:

To determine the characteristics and associations of pain intensity in a specialist CP clinic.

METHODS:

Consecutive patients referred to the CP clinic of the Portuguese Cancer Institute (Lisbon, Portugal) had standardized initial assessments and status documentation of the following: Brief Pain Inventory ratings for ‘pain now’ as the outcome variable; initial pain intensity (iPI) on a 0 to 10 scale; pain mechanism (using the Douleur Neuropathique 4 tool to assess neuropathic pain); episodic pain; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group rating; oral morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD); Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale and Emotional Thermometer scores; and cancer diagnosis, metastases, treatment and pain duration. Univariable analyses were conducted to test the association of independent variables with iPI. Variables with P<0.1 were entered into a multivariable regression model, using backward elimination and a cut-point of P=0.2 for final model selection.

RESULTS:

Of 371 participants, 285 (77%) had moderate (4 to 6) or severe (7 to 10) iPI. The initial median MEDD was relatively low (30 mg [range 20 mg to 60 mg]). In the multivariable model, higher income, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group rating 3 to 4, cancer diagnosis (head and neck, genitourinary and gastrointestinal), adjuvant use and initial MEDD were associated with iPI (P<0.05). The model’s R² was 18.6, which explained only 19% of iPI variance.

CONCLUSIONS:

The diversity of factors associated with pain intensity and their limited explanation of its variance underscore the biopsychosocial complexity of CP. Adequacy of CP management warrants further exploration.

Self-management support intervention to control cancer pain in the outpatient setting: a randomized controlled trial study protocol

BACKGROUND

Pain is a prevalent and distressing symptom in patients with cancer, having an enormous impact on functioning and quality of life. Fragmentation of care, inadequate pain communication, and reluctance towards pain medication contribute to difficulties in optimizing outcomes. Integration of patient self-management and professional care by means of healthcare technology provides new opportunities in the outpatient setting.

METHODS/DESIGN

This study protocol outlines a two-armed multicenter randomized controlled trial that compares a technology based multicomponent self-management support intervention with care as usual and includes an effect, economic and process evaluation. Patients will be recruited consecutively via the outpatient oncology clinics and inpatient oncology wards of one academic hospital and one regional hospital in the south of the Netherlands. Irrespective of the stage of disease, patients are eligible when they are diagnosed with cancer and have uncontrolled moderate to severe cancer (treatment) related pain defined as NRS≥4 for more than two weeks. Randomization (1:1) will assign patients to either the intervention or control group; patients in the intervention group receive self-management support and patients in the control group receive care as usual. The intervention will be delivered by registered nurses specialized in pain and palliative care. Important components include monitoring of pain, adverse effects and medication as well as graphical feedback, education, and nurse support. Effect measurements for both groups will be carried out with questionnaires at baseline (T0), after 4 weeks (T1) and after 12 weeks (T2). Pain intensity and quality of life are the primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes include self-efficacy, knowledge, anxiety, depression and pain medication use. The final questionnaire contains also questions for the economic evaluation that includes both cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis. Data for the process evaluation will be gathered continuously over the study period and focus on recruitment, reach, dose delivered and dose received.

DISCUSSION

The proposed study will provide insight into the effectiveness of the self-management support intervention delivered by nurses to outpatients with uncontrolled cancer pain. Study findings will be used to empower patients and health professionals to improve cancer pain control.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02333968 December 29, 2014.

Pain medication management processes used by oncology outpatients and family caregivers part II: home and lifestyle contexts

CONTEXT

Despite the increasing complexity of medication regimens for persistent cancer pain, little is known about how oncology outpatients and their family caregivers manage pain medications at home.

OBJECTIVES

To describe the day-to-day management of pain medications from the perspectives of oncology outpatients and their family caregivers who participated in a randomized clinical trial of a psychoeducational intervention called the Pro-Self(©) Plus Pain Control Program. In this article, we focus on pain medication management in the context of highly individualized home environments and lifestyles.

METHODS

This qualitative study was conducted as part of a randomized clinical trial, in which an embedded mixed methods research design was used. Audio-recorded dialogue among patients, family caregivers, and intervention nurses was analyzed using qualitative research methods.

RESULTS

Home and lifestyle contexts for managing pain medications included highly individualized home environments, work and recreational activities, personal routines, and family characteristics. Pain medication management processes particularly relevant in these contexts included understanding, organizing, storing, scheduling, remembering, and taking the medications. With the exception of their interactions with the intervention nurses, most study participants had little involvement with clinicians as they worked through these processes.

CONCLUSION

Pain medication management is an ongoing multidimensional process, each step of which has to be mastered by patients and their family caregivers when cancer treatment and supportive care are provided on an outpatient basis. Realistic patient- and family-centered skill-building interventions are needed to achieve effective and safe pain medication management in the contexts of individual home environments and lifestyles.