Aaron L Leppin1, Cara Fernandez2, Jon C Tilburt3. 1. Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA; Division of Health Care and Policy Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA. Electronic address: leppin.aaron@mayo.edu. 2. Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA. 3. Integrative Medicine Program, Division of General Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Treatment of pain in cancer is a clinical priority. Many cancer patients seek and use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to describe the role CAM plays in oncology, clinicians' approaches to pain management and its alignment with patient preference and self-care. METHODS: We used quantitative criteria to identify patients with high, self-reported pain and reduced quality of life. For these patients, we merged quantitative and qualitative data from encounter audio recordings, patient surveys, and the medical record. RESULTS: We identified 32 patients (72% women, average age 60) experiencing significantly symptomatic pain at enrollment. Merged themes were 1) Restricted and defined roles: Oncology clinicians suggested and documented cancer-specific approaches to pain management. Patients often (17, 53%) used CAM but rarely desired to discuss it in their encounters. 2) Proactive patients in setting of neutrality: Pain management strategies were considered in 22 instances. CAM was mentioned in 4 (18%) of these discussions but only after patient initiation. Clinicians took a neutral stance. 3) Missed opportunities for person-centered CAM discussions and management: Most (88%) patients were receiving conventional pain medications at enrollment or had them added or escalated during follow-up. Some patients in pain expressed preferences for avoiding opioids. One patient reported wishing CAM would have been discussed after an encounter in which it was not. CONCLUSION: Bringing CAM discussions into the oncology encounter may facilitate a stronger patient-clinician partnership and a more open and safe understanding of pain-related CAM use.
CONTEXT: Treatment of pain in cancer is a clinical priority. Many cancerpatients seek and use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to describe the role CAM plays in oncology, clinicians' approaches to pain management and its alignment with patient preference and self-care. METHODS: We used quantitative criteria to identify patients with high, self-reported pain and reduced quality of life. For these patients, we merged quantitative and qualitative data from encounter audio recordings, patient surveys, and the medical record. RESULTS: We identified 32 patients (72% women, average age 60) experiencing significantly symptomatic pain at enrollment. Merged themes were 1) Restricted and defined roles: Oncology clinicians suggested and documented cancer-specific approaches to pain management. Patients often (17, 53%) used CAM but rarely desired to discuss it in their encounters. 2) Proactive patients in setting of neutrality: Pain management strategies were considered in 22 instances. CAM was mentioned in 4 (18%) of these discussions but only after patient initiation. Clinicians took a neutral stance. 3) Missed opportunities for person-centered CAM discussions and management: Most (88%) patients were receiving conventional pain medications at enrollment or had them added or escalated during follow-up. Some patients in pain expressed preferences for avoiding opioids. One patient reported wishing CAM would have been discussed after an encounter in which it was not. CONCLUSION: Bringing CAM discussions into the oncology encounter may facilitate a stronger patient-clinician partnership and a more open and safe understanding of pain-related CAM use.
Authors: Jun James Mao; Christina Shearer Palmer; Kaitlin Elizabeth Healy; Krupali Desai; Jay Amsterdam Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2010-10-06 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: M H J van den Beuken-van Everdingen; J M de Rijke; A G Kessels; H C Schouten; M van Kleef; J Patijn Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2007-03-12 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Dona E C Locke; Paul A Decker; Jeff A Sloan; Paul D Brown; James F Malec; Matthew M Clark; Teresa A Rummans; Karla V Ballman; Paul L Schaefer; Jan C Buckner Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2007-08-20 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Lynda G Balneaves; Cody Z Watling; Emilie N Hayward; Brenda Ross; Jill Taylor-Brown; Antony Porcino; Tracy L O Truant Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2022-01-11 Impact factor: 13.506