Literature DB >> 17257753

The use of a responder analysis to identify differences in patient outcomes following a self-care intervention to improve cancer pain management.

Christine Miaskowski1, Marylin Dodd, Claudia West, Steven M Paul, Karen Schumacher, Debu Tripathy, Peter Koo.   

Abstract

Previously, we demonstrated, in a randomized clinical trial, the effectiveness of a psychoeducational intervention to decrease pain intensity scores and increase patients' knowledge of cancer pain management with a sample of oncology patients with pain from bone metastasis. In the present study, we evaluated for changes in mood states (measured using the Profile of Mood States), quality of life (QOL; measured using the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 (SF-36)), and pain's level of interference with function (measured using the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI)) from baseline to the end of the intervention first between the intervention and the standard care groups and then within the intervention group based on the patients' level of response to the intervention (i.e., patients were classified as non-responders, partial responders, or responders). No differences were found in any of these outcome measures between patients in the standard care and intervention groups. However, when patients in the intervention group were categorized using a responder analysis approach, significant differences in the various outcome measures were found among the three respondent groups. Differences in the physical and mental component summary scores on the SF-36 and the interference items on the BPI, among the three respondent groups, were not only statistically significant but also clinically significant. The use of responder analysis in analgesic trials may help to identify unique subgroups of patients and lead to the development of more effective psychoeducational interventions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17257753      PMCID: PMC1906700          DOI: 10.1016/j.pain.2006.09.031

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pain        ISSN: 0304-3959            Impact factor:   6.961


  41 in total

Review 1.  What is clinically meaningful: outcome measures in pain clinical trials.

Authors:  J T Farrar
Journal:  Clin J Pain       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 3.442

2.  Undertreatment of cancer pain in elderly patients.

Authors:  C S Cleeland
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1998-06-17       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  The factor structure of the SF-36 Health Survey in 10 countries: results from the IQOLA Project. International Quality of Life Assessment.

Authors:  J E Ware; M Kosinski; B Gandek; N K Aaronson; G Apolone; P Bech; J Brazier; M Bullinger; S Kaasa; A Leplège; L Prieto; M Sullivan
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1998-11       Impact factor: 6.437

4.  The equivalence of SF-36 summary health scores estimated using standard and country-specific algorithms in 10 countries: results from the IQOLA Project. International Quality of Life Assessment.

Authors:  J E Ware; B Gandek; M Kosinski; N K Aaronson; G Apolone; J Brazier; M Bullinger; S Kaasa; A Leplège; L Prieto; M Sullivan; K Thunedborg
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1998-11       Impact factor: 6.437

5.  Differences in outcomes among patients experiencing different types of cancer-related pain.

Authors:  M Burrows; S L Dibble; C Miaskowski
Journal:  Oncol Nurs Forum       Date:  1998-05       Impact factor: 2.172

6.  When is cancer pain mild, moderate or severe? Grading pain severity by its interference with function.

Authors:  Ronald C Serlin; Tito R Mendoza; Yoshio Nakamura; Katherine R Edwards; Charles S Cleeland
Journal:  Pain       Date:  1995-05       Impact factor: 6.961

Review 7.  Interpreting the meaningfulness of changes in health-related quality of life scores: lessons from studies in adults.

Authors:  D Osoba
Journal:  Int J Cancer Suppl       Date:  1999

8.  Dimensions of the impact of cancer pain in a four country sample: new information from multidimensional scaling.

Authors:  C S Cleeland; Y Nakamura; T R Mendoza; K R Edwards; J Douglas; R C Serlin
Journal:  Pain       Date:  1996-10       Impact factor: 6.961

Review 9.  Individual responder analyses for pain: does one pain scale fit all?

Authors:  Raymond A Dionne; Linda Bartoshuk; Jeffrey Mogil; James Witter
Journal:  Trends Pharmacol Sci       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 14.819

10.  The PRO-SELF pain control program improves patients' knowledge of cancer pain management.

Authors:  Jung-Eun Kim; Marilyn Dodd; Claudia West; Steven Paul; Noreen Facione; Karen Schumacher; Debu Tripathy; Peter Koo; Christine Miaskowski
Journal:  Oncol Nurs Forum       Date:  2004-11-16       Impact factor: 2.172

View more
  17 in total

1.  Trajectories of pain and analgesics in oncology outpatients with metastatic bone pain during participation in a psychoeducational intervention study to improve pain management.

Authors:  Dale J Langford; Steven M Paul; Debu Tripathy; Claudia West; Marylin J Dodd; Karen Schumacher; Christine Miaskowski
Journal:  J Pain       Date:  2011-03-22       Impact factor: 5.820

Review 2.  A framework for assessment in oncology rehabilitation.

Authors:  Laura S Gilchrist; Mary Lou Galantino; Meredith Wampler; Victoria G Marchese; G Stephen Morris; Kirsten K Ness
Journal:  Phys Ther       Date:  2009-01-15

3.  The Brief Pain Inventory and its "pain at its worst in the last 24 hours" item: clinical trial endpoint considerations.

Authors:  Thomas M Atkinson; Tito R Mendoza; Laura Sit; Steven Passik; Howard I Scher; Charles Cleeland; Ethan Basch
Journal:  Pain Med       Date:  2010-01-15       Impact factor: 3.750

4.  A randomized validation study comparing embedded versus extracted FACT Head and Neck Symptom Index scores.

Authors:  Susan Yount; Marcy List; Hongyan Du; Kathleen Yost; Rita Bode; Bruce Brockstein; Athanassios Argiris; Everett Vokes; Ezra E W Cohen; Bruce Campbell; Veronica Valenzuela; Jacquelyn George; Robyn Egan; Jessica Chen; David Meddis; David Cella
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2007-10-06       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 5.  When more data steer us wrong: replications with the wrong dependent measure perpetuate erroneous conclusions.

Authors:  Caren M Rotello; Evan Heit; Chad Dubé
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2015-08

Review 6.  Populations and Interventions for Palliative and End-of-Life Care: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Adam E Singer; Joy R Goebel; Yan S Kim; Sydney M Dy; Sangeeta C Ahluwalia; Megan Clifford; Elizabeth Dzeng; Claire E O'Hanlon; Aneesa Motala; Anne M Walling; Jaime Goldberg; Daniella Meeker; Claudia Ochotorena; Roberta Shanman; Mike Cui; Karl A Lorenz
Journal:  J Palliat Med       Date:  2016-08-17       Impact factor: 2.947

Review 7.  Do interference-based cut-points differentiate mild, moderate, and severe levels of 16 cancer-related symptoms over time?

Authors:  Sangchoon Jeon; Charles W Given; Alla Sikorskii; Barbara Given
Journal:  J Pain Symptom Manage       Date:  2008-07-10       Impact factor: 3.612

8.  Response analysis for multiple symptoms revealed differences between arms of a symptom management trial.

Authors:  Alla Sikorskii; Charles W Given; Mei You; Sangchoon Jeon; Barbara A Given
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2009-01-04       Impact factor: 6.437

9.  An integrated model of multimorbidity and symptom science.

Authors:  Toni Tripp-Reimer; Janet K Williams; Sue E Gardner; Barbara Rakel; Keela Herr; Ann Marie McCarthy; Linda Liu Hand; Stephanie Gilbertson-White; Catherine Cherwin
Journal:  Nurs Outlook       Date:  2020-05-29       Impact factor: 3.250

10.  Managing symptoms among patients with breast cancer during chemotherapy: results of a two-arm behavioral trial.

Authors:  Charles W Given; Alla Sikorskii; Deimante Tamkus; Barbara Given; Mei You; Ruth McCorkle; Victoria Champion; David Decker
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2008-11-24       Impact factor: 44.544

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.