N Marie1, T Luckett, P M Davidson, M Lovell, S Lal. 1. School of Medical and Molecular Biosciences, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, Australia, natalie.marie@uts.edu.au.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Previous systematic reviews have found patient education to be moderately efficacious in decreasing the intensity of cancer pain, but variation in results warrants analysis aimed at identifying which strategies are optimal. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken using a theory-based approach to classifying and comparing educational interventions for cancer pain. The reference lists of previous reviews and MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and CENTRAL were searched in May 2012. Studies had to be published in a peer-reviewed English language journal and compare the effect on cancer pain intensity of education with usual care. Meta-analyses used standardized effect sizes (ES) and a random effects model. Subgroup analyses compared intervention components categorized using the Michie et al. (Implement Sci 6:42, 2011) capability, opportunity, and motivation behavior (COM-B) model. RESULTS: Fifteen randomized controlled trials met the criteria. As expected, meta-analysis identified a small-moderate ES favoring education versus usual care (ES, 0.27 [-0.47, -0.07]; P = 0.007) with substantial heterogeneity (I² = 71 %). Subgroup analyses based on the taxonomy found that interventions using "enablement" were efficacious (ES, 0.35 [-0.63, -0.08]; P = 0.01), whereas those lacking this component were not (ES, 0.18 [-0.46, 0.10]; P = 0.20). However, the subgroup effect was nonsignificant (P = 0.39), and heterogeneity was not reduced. Factoring in the variable of individualized versus non-individualized influenced neither efficacy nor heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: The current meta-analysis follows a trend in using theory to understand the mechanisms of complex interventions. We suggest that future efforts focus on interventions that target patient self-efficacy. Authors are encouraged to report comprehensive details of interventions and methods to inform synthesis, replication, and refinement.
PURPOSE: Previous systematic reviews have found patient education to be moderately efficacious in decreasing the intensity of cancer pain, but variation in results warrants analysis aimed at identifying which strategies are optimal. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken using a theory-based approach to classifying and comparing educational interventions for cancer pain. The reference lists of previous reviews and MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and CENTRAL were searched in May 2012. Studies had to be published in a peer-reviewed English language journal and compare the effect on cancer pain intensity of education with usual care. Meta-analyses used standardized effect sizes (ES) and a random effects model. Subgroup analyses compared intervention components categorized using the Michie et al. (Implement Sci 6:42, 2011) capability, opportunity, and motivation behavior (COM-B) model. RESULTS: Fifteen randomized controlled trials met the criteria. As expected, meta-analysis identified a small-moderate ES favoring education versus usual care (ES, 0.27 [-0.47, -0.07]; P = 0.007) with substantial heterogeneity (I² = 71 %). Subgroup analyses based on the taxonomy found that interventions using "enablement" were efficacious (ES, 0.35 [-0.63, -0.08]; P = 0.01), whereas those lacking this component were not (ES, 0.18 [-0.46, 0.10]; P = 0.20). However, the subgroup effect was nonsignificant (P = 0.39), and heterogeneity was not reduced. Factoring in the variable of individualized versus non-individualized influenced neither efficacy nor heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: The current meta-analysis follows a trend in using theory to understand the mechanisms of complex interventions. We suggest that future efforts focus on interventions that target patient self-efficacy. Authors are encouraged to report comprehensive details of interventions and methods to inform synthesis, replication, and refinement.
Authors: R de Wit; F van Dam; S Loonstra; L Zandbelt; A van Buuren; K van der Heijden; G Leenhouts; H Duivenvoorden; H Huijer Abu-Saad Journal: Eur J Pain Date: 2001 Impact factor: 3.931
Authors: Greta G Cummings; Susan Armijo Olivo; Patricia D Biondo; Carla R Stiles; Ozden Yurtseven; Robin L Fainsinger; Neil A Hagen Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2011-03-12 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Karen L Syrjala; Mark P Jensen; M Elena Mendoza; Jean C Yi; Hannah M Fisher; Francis J Keefe Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-05-05 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: F Kühne; C Meinders; H Mohr; K Hafenbrack; K Kieseritzky; C Rosenberger; M Härter; F Schulz-Kindermann; R Klinger; A Y Nestoriuc Journal: Schmerz Date: 2016-12 Impact factor: 1.107
Authors: Mary E Cooley; Janet L Abrahm; Donna L Berry; Michael S Rabin; Ilana M Braun; Joanna Paladino; Manan M Nayak; David F Lobach Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2018-05-29 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: Karen L Schumacher; Vicki L Plano Clark; Michael W Rabow; Steven M Paul; Christine Miaskowski Journal: Cancer Nurs Date: 2021 Mar-Apr 01 Impact factor: 2.592
Authors: Tim Luckett; Jane Phillips; Meera Agar; Lawrence Lam; Patricia M Davidson; Nicola McCaffrey; Frances Boyle; Tim Shaw; David C Currow; Alison Read; Annmarie Hosie; Melanie Lovell Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2018-07-16 Impact factor: 2.655