Improving the management of pain from advanced cancer in the community: study protocol for a pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial

Implementation of electronic prospective surveillance models in cancer care: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Electronic prospective surveillance models (ePSMs) for cancer rehabilitation include routine monitoring of the development of treatment toxicities and impairments via electronic patient-reported outcomes. Implementing ePSMs to address the knowledge-to-practice gap between the high incidence of impairments and low uptake of rehabilitation services is a top priority in cancer care.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review to understand the state of the evidence concerning the implementation of ePSMs in oncology. Seven electronic databases were searched from inception to February 2021. All articles were screened and extracted by two independent reviewers. Data regarding the implementation strategies, outcomes, and determinants were extracted. The Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change taxonomy and the implementation outcomes taxonomy guided the synthesis of the implementation strategies and outcomes, respectively. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research guided the synthesis of determinants based on five domains (intervention characteristics, individual characteristics, inner setting, outer setting, and process).

RESULTS

Of the 5122 records identified, 46 interventions met inclusion criteria. The common implementation strategies employed were "conduct educational meetings," "distribute educational materials," "change record systems," and "intervene with patients to enhance uptake and adherence." Feasibility and acceptability were the prominent outcomes used to assess implementation. The complexity, relative advantage, design quality, and packaging were major implementation determinants at the intervention level. Knowledge was key at the individual level. At the inner setting level, major determinants were the implementation climate and readiness for implementation. At the outer setting level, meeting the needs of patients was the primary determinant. Engaging various stakeholders was key at the process level.

CONCLUSIONS

This review provides a comprehensive summary of what is known concerning the implementation of ePSMs. The results can inform future implementation and evaluation of ePSMs, including planning for key determinants, selecting implementation strategies, and considering outcomes alongside local contextual factors to guide the implementation process.

Development of the Practice of Pharmaceutical Care for Cancer Pain Management in Outpatient Clinics Using the Delphi Method

Background: There exists no broad agreement of experts on the practice of pharmaceutical care for cancer pain management in outpatient clinics. Objectives: This study aimed to use the Delphi consensus process to provide expert recommendations on the practice of cancer pain management in outpatient clinics from the point of view of pharmaceutical care in clinical practice and future clinical trials. Methods: A comprehensive literature review was conducted to draft the initial practice. In this process, 30-40 senior experts from various provinces in China were invited to rank the items of practice during the two Delphi consultations. The definitions of consensus included a combination with an average score of ≥4, the percentage of experts rating the scores at >4 points, and the coefficient of variation of the scores. Results: The expert panel comprised 18 pharmacists, 3 anesthesiologists, 6 oncologists, and 9 nurses. As a result of a comprehensive review, 33 items were initially formed. Among them, the consensus was reached for 27 items after the first Delphi round. The other six items and a total of five items for supplementation entered the second round, among which consensus was reached for eight items and three items were excluded. Expert consensus was achieved on 35 items after two rounds of consultation, which involved the collection of patient basic information, comprehensive pain assessment, breakthrough or neuropathic pain assessment, analgesic treatment evaluation, out-of-hospital follow-up, medical records, and evidence-based documents for reference. Conclusion: The final list of 35 items could be used to develop the practice of pharmaceutical care for cancer pain management in outpatient clinics in China. The practice may aid in the standardization of pharmaceutical care for pain, relieve pain to the greatest extent possible, and enhance the level of pain management in China.

Pain self-management interventions for community-based patients with advanced cancer: a research programme including the IMPACCT RCT

Background

Each year in England and Wales, 150,000 people die from cancer, of whom 110,000 will suffer from cancer pain. Research highlights that cancer pain remains common, severe and undertreated, and may lead to hospital admissions.

Objective

To develop and evaluate pain self-management interventions for community-based patients with advanced cancer.

Design

A programme of mixed-methods intervention development work leading to a pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial of a multicomponent intervention for pain management compared with usual care, including an assessment of cost-effectiveness.

Participants

Patients, including those with metastatic solid cancer (histological, cytological or radiological evidence) and/or those receiving anti-cancer therapy with palliative intent, and health professionals involved in the delivery of community-based palliative care.

Setting

For the randomised controlled trial, patients were recruited from oncology outpatient clinics and were randomly allocated to intervention or control and followed up at home.

Interventions

The Supported Self-Management intervention comprised an educational component called Tackling Cancer Pain, and an eHealth component for routine pain assessment and monitoring called PainCheck.

Main outcome measures

The primary outcome was pain severity (measured using the Brief Pain Inventory). The secondary outcomes included pain interference (measured using the Brief Pain Inventory), participants’ pain knowledge and experience, and cost-effectiveness. We estimated costs and health-related quality-of-life outcomes using decision modelling and a separate within-trial economic analysis. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios per quality-adjusted life-year for the trial period.

Results

Work package 1 – We found barriers to and variation in the co-ordination of advanced cancer care by oncology and primary care professionals. We identified that the median time between referral to palliative care services and death for 42,758 patients in the UK was 48 days. We identified key components for self-management and developed and tested our Tackling Cancer Pain resource for acceptability. Work package 2 – Patients with advanced cancer and their health professionals recognised the benefits of an electronic system to monitor pain, but had reservations about how such a system might work in practice. We developed and tested a prototype PainCheck system. Work package 3 – We found that strong opioids were prescribed for 48% of patients in the last year of life at a median of 9 weeks before death. We delivered Medicines Use Reviews to patients, in which many medicines-related problems were identified. Work package 4 – A total of 161 oncology outpatients were randomised in our clinical trial, receiving either supported self-management (n = 80) or usual care (n = 81); their median survival from randomisation was 53 weeks. Primary and sensitivity analyses found no significant treatment differences for the primary outcome or for other secondary outcomes of pain severity or health-related quality of life. The literature-based decision modelling indicated that information and feedback interventions similar to the supported self-management intervention could be cost-effective. This model was not used to extrapolate the outcomes of the trial over a longer time horizon because the statistical analysis of the trial data found no difference between the trial arms in terms of the primary outcome measure (pain severity). The within-trial economic evaluation base-case analysis found that supported self-management reduced costs by £587 and yielded marginally higher quality-adjusted life-years (0.0018) than usual care. However, the difference in quality-adjusted life-years between the two trial arms was negligible and this was not in line with the decision model that had been developed. Our process evaluation found low fidelity of the interventions delivered by clinical professionals.

Limitations

In the randomised controlled trial, the low fidelity of the interventions and the challenge of the study design, which forced the usual-care arm to have earlier access to palliative care services, might explain the lack of observed benefit. Overall, 71% of participants returned outcome data at 6 or 12 weeks and so we used administrative data to estimate costs. Our decision model did not include the negative trial results from our randomised controlled trial and, therefore, may overestimate the likelihood of cost-effectiveness.

Conclusions

Our programme of research has revealed new insights into how patients with advanced cancer manage their pain and the challenges faced by health professionals in identifying those who need more help. Our clinical trial failed to show an added benefit of our interventions to enhance existing community palliative care support, although both the decision model and the economic evaluation of the trial indicated that supported self-management could result in lower health-care costs.

Future work

There is a need for further research to (1) understand and facilitate triggers that prompt earlier integration of palliative care and pain management within oncology services; (2) determine the optimal timing of technologies for self-management; and (3) examine prescriber and patient behaviour to achieve the earlier initiation and use of strong opioid treatment.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN18281271.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 9, No. 15. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome-Based Interventions for Palliative Cancer Care: A Systematic and Mapping Review

PURPOSE

Capitalizing on the promise of patient-reported outcomes (PROs), electronic implementations of PROs (ePROs) are expected to play an important role in the development of novel digital health interventions targeting palliative cancer care. We performed a systematic and mapping review of the scientific literature on the current ePRO-based approaches used for palliative cancer care.

METHODS

Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement guidelines, the conducted review answered the research questions: "What are the current ePRO-based approaches for palliative cancer care; what is their contribution/value in the domain of palliative cancer care; and what are the potential gaps, challenges, and opportunities for further research?" After a screening step, the corpus of included articles indexed in PubMed or the Web of Science underwent full text review, which mapped the articles across 15 predefined axes.

RESULTS

The corpus of 24 mapped studies includes 9 study protocols, 7 technical tools/solutions, 7 pilot/feasibility/acceptability studies, and 1 evaluation study. The review of the corpus revealed (1) an archetype of ePRO-enabled interventions for palliative cancer care, which most commonly use ePROs as study end point assessment instruments rather than integral intervention components; (2) the fact that the literature has not fully embraced the modern definitions that expand the scope of palliative care; (3) the striking shortage of promising ubiquitous computing devices (eg, smart activity trackers); and (4) emerging evidence about the benefits of narrowing down the target cancer population, especially when combined with modern patient-centered intervention design methodologies.

CONCLUSION

Although research on exploiting ePROs for the development of digital palliative cancer care interventions is considerably active and demonstrates several successful cases, there is considerable room for improvement along the directions of the aforementioned findings.

Pain management strategies among cervical cancer patients in Zimbabwe

Aim: To describe pain management regulations, prevalence of pain and pain management practices in a Zimbabwean setting. Materials & methods: A multi-methods approach was used, consisting of: policy and guideline review; review of 410 cervical cancer patient records for pain symptoms and pain management data; and semistructured interviews with oncology healthcare practitioners. Results: We found a lack of policies that are specific for cervical cancer pain management. Although prevalence of pain was 68% (n = 278), only 42% of the patient records indicated pain drugs had been prescribed. Barriers to pain management included inadequate use of pain assessment tools, inaccessibility of key drugs and limited capacity. Conclusion: Cancer pain management in Zimbabwe can be improved by tailoring assessment protocols, improving drug accessibility and strengthening healthcare systems.

Multidisciplinary Software Design for the Routine Monitoring and Assessment of Pain in Palliative Care Services: The Development of PainCheck

PURPOSE

The use of health information technology (HIT) to support patient and health professional communication is emerging as a core component of modern cancer care. Approaches to HIT development for cancer care are often underreported, despite their implementation in complex, multidisciplinary environments, typically supporting patients with multifaceted needs. We describe the development and evaluation of an e-health tool for pain management in patients with advanced cancer, arising from collaboration between health researchers and a commercial software development company.

METHODS

We adopted a research-led development process, involving patients with advanced cancer and their health professionals, focusing on use within real clinical settings. A software development approach (disciplined agile delivery) was combined with health science research methods (ie, diary studies, face-to-face interviews, questionnaires, prototyping, think aloud, process reviews, and pilots). Three software iterations were managed through three disciplined agile delivery phases to develop PainCheck and prepare it for use in a clinical trial.

RESULTS

Findings from development phases (inception, elaboration, and construction) informed the design and implementation of PainCheck. During the transition phase, where PainCheck was evaluated in a randomized clinical trial, there was variation in the extent of engagement by patients and health professionals. Prior personal experience and confidence with HIT led to a gatekeeping effect among health professionals, who were reluctant to introduce PainCheck to patients. Patients who did use PainCheck seemed to benefit, and no usability issues were reported.

CONCLUSION

Health science research methods seemed to help in the development of PainCheck, although a more rigorous application of implementation science methodologies might help to elucidate further the barriers and facilitators to adoption and inform an evidence-based plan for future implementation.

Using information and communication technologies to improve the management of pain from advanced cancer in the community: Qualitative study of the experience of implementation for patients and health professionals in a trial

In cancer care, there are emerging information and communication technology systems being developed, enabling real-time information sharing between patients and health professionals. This study explored health professionals' and patients' perceptions of their engagement with an information and communication technology system for pain management to understand the mechanisms that could support implementation into routine palliative care practice. This was a qualitative study, embedded within a randomised control trial, using semi-structured face-to-face interviews. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. The role of health professionals was a key component to patient engagement with the information and communication technology system. Where patients engaged with the information and communication technology system, both patients and health professionals reported benefits to system use in addition to usual care. Implementation issues were identified that can be used to guide future system development to support pain management in the context of routine clinical care in palliative care services. Where interventions are dependent on multiple providers, collaborative working and consideration of the context within which they are set are needed.

Access to Opioids for Patients with Advanced Disease

Pain at the end of life is common in both malignant and non-malignant disease. It is feared by patients, their families and careers, and professionals. Effective pain control can be achieved for the majority of patients at the end of life using a multimodal approach. Pharmacological management relies predominantly on strong opioids. In spite of this, evidence suggests that under treatment of pain is common resulting in unnecessary suffering. Multiple barriers to use of opioids have been identified. Patient barriers include reluctance to report pain and to take analgesics. Professional barriers include inadequate pain assessment and lack of specialist knowledge and confidence in opioid therapy. Fear of side effects including respiratory depression affects patients and professionals alike. The impact of the "opioid epidemic", with increasing prescribed and illicit opioid use around the world, has also led to increasingly stringent regulation and concern about under prescribing in palliative care. System barriers to use of opioids at the end of life result from limited opioid availability in some countries and also inconsistent and limited access to palliative care. Multiple interventions have been developed to address these barriers, targeted at patients, professionals and systems. There is increasing evidence to suggest that complex interventions combining a number of different approaches are most effective in optimising pain outcomes for patients at the end of life.

ECCO Essential Requirements for Quality Cancer Care: Primary care

BACKGROUND

ECCO Essential Requirements for Quality Cancer Care (ERQCC) are checklists and explanations of organisation and actions that are necessary to give high-quality care to cancer patients. They are written by European experts representing all disciplines involved in cancer care. This paper concerns the integration of primary care into care for all cancers in Europe. Primary care integration.

A community pharmacist medicines optimisation service for patients with advanced cancer pain: a proof of concept study

Background Patients with advanced cancer commonly experience pain and it is least controlled in community settings. Community pharmacists in the UK already offer medicines optimisation consultations although not for this patient group. Objective To determine whether medicines consultations for patients with advanced cancer pain are feasible and acceptable. Setting Community-dwelling patients with advanced cancer pain were recruited from primary, secondary and tertiary care using purposive sampling in one UK city. Methods One face-to-face or two telephone delivered medicines optimisation consultations by pharmacists were tested. These were based on services currently delivered in UK community pharmacies. Feedback was obtained from patients and healthcare professionals involved to assess feasibility and acceptability. Main outcome measure Recruitment, acceptability and drug related problems. Results Twenty-three patients, (range 33-88 years) were recruited, 19 completed consultation(s) of whom 17 were receiving palliative care services. Five received face-to-face consultations and 14 by telephone during which 47 drug related problems were identified from 33 consultations (mean 2.5). Advice was provided for 34 drug related problems in 17 patients and referral to other healthcare professionals for 13 in 8 patients, 2 patients had none. Eleven patients returned questionnaires of which 8 (73%) would recommend the consultations to others. Conclusion The consultations were feasible as patients were recruited, retained, consultations delivered, and data collected. Patients found the 20-30 min intervention acceptable, found a self-perceived increase in medicines knowledge and most would recommend it to others. Community pharmacists were willing to carry out these services however they had confidence issues in accessing working knowledge. Most drug related problems were resolved by the pharmacists and even among patients receiving palliative care services there were still issues concerning analgesic management. Pharmacist-conducted medicines consultations demonstrate potential which now needs to be evaluated within a larger study in the future.

Cancer-Related Neuropathic Pain

Neuropathic pain in cancer is common and debilitating. It is important to differentiate neuropathic pain from other cancer-related pains as it is associated with worse pain outcomes and requires different treatment strategies. This review summarises recent updates to pain classification, aetiology, pain assessment and current recommendations for treatment in patients with cancer-related neuropathic pain.