Self-management support intervention to control cancer pain in the outpatient setting: a randomized controlled trial study protocol

Background: Pain is a prevalent and distressing symptom in patients with cancer, having an enormous impact on functioning and quality of life. Fragmentation of care, inadequate pain communication, and reluctance towards pain medication contribute to difficulties in optimizing outcomes. Integration of patient self-management and professional care by means of healthcare technology provides new opportunities in the outpatient setting. Methods/Design: This study protocol outlines a two-armed multicenter randomized controlled trial that compares a technology based multicomponent self-management support intervention with care as usual and includes an effect, economic and process evaluation. Patients will be recruited consecutively via the outpatient oncology clinics and inpatient oncology wards of one academic hospital and one regional hospital in the south of the Netherlands. Irrespective of the stage of disease, patients are eligible when they are diagnosed with cancer and have uncontrolled moderate to severe cancer (treatment) related pain defined as NRS ≥ 4 for more than two weeks. Randomization (1:1) will assign patients to either the intervention or control group; patients in the intervention group receive self-management support and patients in the control group receive care as usual. The intervention will be delivered by registered nurses specialized in pain and palliative care. Important components include monitoring of pain, adverse effects and medication as well as graphical feedback, education, and nurse support. Effect measurements for both groups will be carried out with questionnaires at baseline (T0), after 4 weeks (T1) and after 12 weeks (T2). Pain intensity and quality of life are the primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes include self-efficacy, knowledge, anxiety, depression and pain medication use. The final questionnaire contains also questions for the economic evaluation that includes both cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis. Data for the process evaluation will be gathered continuously over the study period and focus on recruitment, reach, dose delivered and dose received. Discussion: The proposed study will provide insight into the effectiveness of the self-management support intervention delivered by nurses to outpatients with uncontrolled cancer pain. Study findings will be used to empower patients and health professionals to improve cancer pain control. Trial registration: NCT02333968 December 29, 201

Can-Pain-a digital intervention to optimise cancer pain control in the community : development and feasibility testing

Purpose: To develop a novel digital intervention to optimise cancer pain control in the community. This paper describes intervention development, content/rationale and initial feasibility testing. Methods: Determinants of suboptimal cancer pain management were characterised through two systematic reviews; patient, caregiver and healthcare professional (HCP) interviews (n = 39); and two HCP focus groups (n = 12). Intervention mapping was used to translate results into theory-based content, creating the app “Can-Pain”. Patients with/without a linked caregiver, their general practitioners and community palliative care nurses were recruited to feasibility test Can-Pain over 4 weeks. Results: Patients on strong opioids described challenges balancing pain levels with opioid intake, side effects and activities and communicating about pain management problems with HCPs. Can-Pain addresses these challenges through educational resources, contemporaneous short-acting opioid tracking and weekly patient-reported outcome monitoring. Novel aspects of Can-Pain include the use of contemporaneous breakthrough analgesic reports as a surrogate measure of pain control and measuring the level at which pain becomes bothersome to the individual. Patients were unwell due to advanced cancer, making recruitment to feasibility testing difficult. Two patients and one caregiver used Can-Pain for 4 weeks, sharing weekly reports with four HCPs. Can-Pain highlighted unrecognised problems, promoted shared understanding about symptoms between patients and HCPs and supported shared decision-making. Conclusions: Preliminary testing suggests that Can-Pain is feasible and could promote patient-centred pain management. We will conduct further small-scale evaluations to inform a future randomised, stepped-wedge trial

Trends in publications regarding evidence-practice gaps: A literature review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Well-designed trials of strategies to improve adherence to clinical practice guidelines are needed to close persistent evidence-practice gaps. We studied how the number of these trials is changing with time, and to what extent physicians are participating in such trials.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This is a literature-based study of trends in evidence-practice gap publications over 10 years and participation of clinicians in intervention trials to narrow evidence-practice gaps. We chose nine evidence-based guidelines and identified relevant publications in the PubMed database from January 1998 to December 2007. We coded these publications by study type (intervention versus non-intervention studies). We further subdivided intervention studies into those for clinicians and those for patients. Data were analyzed to determine if observed trends were statistically significant.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We identified 1,151 publications that discussed evidence-practice gaps in nine topic areas. There were 169 intervention studies that were designed to improve adherence to well-established clinical guidelines, averaging 1.9 studies per year per topic area. Twenty-eight publications (34%; 95% CI: 24% - 45%) reported interventions intended for clinicians or health systems that met Effective Practice and Organization of Care (EPOC) criteria for adequate design. The median consent rate of physicians asked to participate in these well-designed studies was 60% (95% CI, 25% to 69%).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>We evaluated research publications for nine evidence-practice gaps, and identified small numbers of well-designed intervention trials and low rates of physician participation in these trials.</p

Pattern and quality of care of cancer pain management. Results from the Cancer Pain Outcome Research Study Group

Most patients with advanced or metastatic cancer experience pain and despite several guidelines, undertreatment is well documented. A multicenter, open-label, prospective, non-randomised study was launched in Italy in 2006 to evaluate the epidemiology, patterns and quality of pain care of cancer patients. To assess the adequacy of analgesic care, we used a standardised measure, the pain management index (PMI), that compares the most potent analgesic prescribed for a patient with the reported level of the worst pain of that patient together with a selected list of clinical indicators. A total of 110 centres recruited 1801 valid cases. 61% of cases were received a WHO-level III opioid; 25.3% were classified as potentially undertreated, with wide variation (9.8–55.3%) according to the variables describing patients, centres and pattern of care. After adjustment with a multivariable logistic regression model, type of recruiting centre, receiving adjuvant therapy or not and type of patient recruited (new or already on follow-up) had a significant association with undertreatment. Non-compliance with the predefined set of clinical indicators was generally high, ranging from 41 to 76%. Despite intrinsic limitations of the PMI that may be considered as an indicator of the poor quality of cancer pain care, results suggest that the recourse to WHO third-level drugs still seems delayed in a substantial percentage of patients. This delay is probably related to several factors affecting practice in participating centres and suggests that the quality of cancer pain management in Italy deserves specific attention and interventions aimed at improving patients' outcomes

Cancer specialist nurses’ perspectives of physical activity promotion and the potential role of physical activity apps in cancer care

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to understand breast, prostate and colorectal cancer Clinical Nurse Specialists’ (CNSs) perspectives on physical activity (PA) promotion and the role of smartphone apps to support PA promotion in cancer care. Methods: CNSs working in breast, prostate or colorectal cancer were recruited via advertisements distributed by professional organisations. In-depth semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted and analysed using thematic analysis. Results: 19 CNSs participated. The analysis resulted in 4 themes regarding CNSs’ perspectives of PA promotion within cancer care: i) policy changes in survivorship care have influenced CNSs’ promotion of PA; ii) CNSs recognise their role in supporting PA but sit within a wider system necessary for effective PA promotion; iii) CNSs use several techniques to promote PA within their consultations; iv) remaining challenges in PA promotion. The analysis resulted in 3 themes regarding CNSs’ perspectives on the use of apps to promote PA within cancer care: i) the influence of apps on access to PA support; ii) the role of apps in self-directed PA; iii) implementing apps in cancer care. Conclusions: The results of this study provide valuable insight into the CNS role and provide a number of important considerations for the development and implementation of PA interventions within cancer care, with a specific focus on smartphone-based interventions. Implications for cancer survivors: CNSs play an important role in PA promotion in cancer care and this research can inform the development of PA interventions delivered via smartphone app for people affected by cancer