Literature DB >> 27169702

How does pain experience relate to the need for pain relief? A secondary exploratory analysis in a large sample of cancer patients.

Anna Thit Johnsen1,2, Morten A Petersen3, Claire F Snyder4, Lise Pedersen3, Mogens Groenvold3,5.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To explore (1) the information obtained from related but conceptually different approaches to pain assessment and (2) the extent to which the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) can be used as a screening tool to predict patient-reported need for pain relief.
METHODS: Cancer patients randomly sampled from 56 hospital departments were included. Questionnaire items assessed patients' (a) pain experience using the EORTC QLQ-C30 pain scale and its two pain items separately (pain intensity and pain interference) and (b) pain burden and (c) need for pain relief using the Three-Levels-of-Needs Questionnaire (3LNQ).
RESULTS: Of the 2364 patients contacted by mail, 1447 (61 %) completed the questionnaires. Among these, 51 % reported at least "a little" pain on the pain intensity item. The number of patients reporting pain to be a burden was similar, and pain experience and pain burden were highly correlated (correlation coefficients ranged from 0.85 to 0.91). Pain experience and pain burden were moderately correlated with the need for pain relief. A receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis showed that the EORTC QLQ-C30 discriminated between patients with and without a need for pain relief to an acceptable degree (area under the curve (AUC) 0.73-0.77). The cut-point a little gave a sensitivity of 84 % and specificity of 59 % for the item "Have you had pain?" and a sensitivity of 72 % and a specificity of 72 % for the pain scale.
CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients who experienced pain felt it to be a problem. Pain experience and pain burden were substantially related to need for pain relief, and the latter could be predicted from the EORTC QLQ-C30.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cancer; Need assessment; Pain; Patient-reported outcome; Questionnaire; Screening

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27169702     DOI: 10.1007/s00520-016-3246-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Support Care Cancer        ISSN: 0941-4355            Impact factor:   3.603


  26 in total

1.  Health-related quality-of-life assessments and patient-physician communication: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Symone B Detmar; Martin J Muller; Jan H Schornagel; Lidwina D V Wever; Neil K Aaronson
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2002-12-18       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 2.  Impact of patient-reported outcome measures on routine practice: a structured review.

Authors:  Susan Marshall; Kirstie Haywood; Ray Fitzpatrick
Journal:  J Eval Clin Pract       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 2.431

3.  Framework to assess the effects of using patient-reported outcome measures in chronic care management.

Authors:  Maria-Jose Santana; David Feeny
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2013-12-07       Impact factor: 4.147

4.  Symptoms during cancer pain treatment following WHO-guidelines: a longitudinal follow-up study of symptom prevalence, severity and etiology.

Authors:  T Meuser; C Pietruck; L Radbruch; P Stute; K A Lehmann; S Grond
Journal:  Pain       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 6.961

5.  Patient experiences of pain and pain management at the end of life: a pilot study.

Authors:  Annika Larsson; Helle Wijk
Journal:  Pain Manag Nurs       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 1.929

6.  The Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale: an instrument for the evaluation of symptom prevalence, characteristics and distress.

Authors:  R K Portenoy; H T Thaler; A B Kornblith; J M Lepore; H Friedlander-Klar; E Kiyasu; K Sobel; N Coyle; N Kemeny; L Norton
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  1994       Impact factor: 9.162

7.  Do high symptom scores trigger clinical actions? An audit after implementing electronic symptom screening.

Authors:  Hsien Seow; Jonathan Sussman; Lorraine Martelli-Reid; Greg Pond; Daryl Bainbridge
Journal:  J Oncol Pract       Date:  2012-08-21       Impact factor: 3.840

8.  Measuring quality of life in routine oncology practice improves communication and patient well-being: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Galina Velikova; Laura Booth; Adam B Smith; Paul M Brown; Pamela Lynch; Julia M Brown; Peter J Selby
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2004-02-15       Impact factor: 44.544

9.  Patients' and health professionals' understanding of and preferences for graphical presentation styles for individual-level EORTC QLQ-C30 scores.

Authors:  W Kuijpers; J M Giesinger; A Zabernigg; T Young; E Friend; I M Tomaszewska; N K Aaronson; B Holzner
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2015-09-09       Impact factor: 4.147

10.  Development of an item bank for computerized adaptive test (CAT) measurement of pain.

Authors:  Morten Aa Petersen; Neil K Aaronson; Wei-Chu Chie; Thierry Conroy; Anna Costantini; Eva Hammerlid; Marianne J Hjermstad; Stein Kaasa; Jon H Loge; Galina Velikova; Teresa Young; Mogens Groenvold
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2015-08-13       Impact factor: 4.147

View more
  3 in total

1.  Nausea in advanced cancer: relationships between intensity, burden, and the need for help.

Authors:  Signe Ladegaard Harder; Mogens Groenvold; Jørn Herrstedt; Anna Thit Johnsen
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2018-06-26       Impact factor: 3.603

2.  Interpreting and Acting on PRO Results in Clinical Practice: Lessons Learned From the PatientViewpoint System and Beyond.

Authors:  Amanda L Blackford; Albert W Wu; Claire Snyder
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 2.983

3.  Relationship between prescribed opioids, pain management satisfaction, and pain intensity in oncology outpatients.

Authors:  Jia-Hua Wang; Ling-Wei Wang; Shu-Yuan Liang; John Rosenberg; Tsae-Jyy Wang; Shu-Fang Wu; Chieh-Yu Liu
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2022-01-03       Impact factor: 3.603

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.