Pain Medication Management Processes Used by Oncology Outpatients and Family Caregivers Part II: Home and Lifestyle Contexts

Context—Despite the increasing complexity of medication regimens for persistent cancer pain, little is known about how oncology outpatients and their family caregivers manage pain medications at home. Objectives—To describe the day-to-day management of pain medications from the perspectives of oncology outpatients and their family caregivers who participated in a randomized clinical trial (RCT) of a psycho-educational intervention called the Pro-Self © Plus Pain Control Program. In this article, we focus on pain medication management in the context of highly individualized home environments and lifestyles. Methods—This qualitative study was conducted as part of a RCT in which an embedded mixed methods research design was used. Audio-recorded dialogue among patients, family caregivers, and intervention nurses was analyzed using qualitative research methods. Results—Home and lifestyle contexts for managing pain medications included highly individualized home environments, work and recreational activities, personal routines, and family characteristics. Pain medication management processes particularly relevant in these contexts included understanding, organizing, storing, scheduling, remembering, and taking the medications. With the exception of their interactions with the intervention nurses, most study participants had little involvement with clinicians as they worked through these processes. Conclusion—Pain medication management is an ongoing multidimensional process, each step of which has to be mastered by patients and family caregivers when cancer treatment and supportive care is provided on an outpatient basis. Realistic patient- and family-centered skill-building interventions are needed to achieve effective and safe pain medication management in the contexts of individual home environments and lifestyles

Pain Medication Management Processes Used by Oncology Outpatients and Family Caregivers Part I: Health Systems Contexts

Context—Oncology patients with persistent pain treated in outpatient settings and their family caregivers have significant responsibility for managing pain medications. However, little is known about their practical, day-to-day experiences with pain medication management. Objective—To describe day-to-day pain medication management from the perspectives of oncology outpatients and their family caregivers who participated in a randomized clinical trial of a psycho-educational intervention called the Pro-Self© Plus Pain Control Program. In this article, we focus on pain medication management by patients and family caregivers in the context of multiple, complex health systems. Methods—We qualitatively analyzed audio-recorded intervention sessions that included extensive dialogue between patients, family caregivers, and nurses about pain medication management during the 10-week intervention. Results—The health systems context for pain medication management included multiple complex systems for clinical care, reimbursement, and regulation of analgesic prescriptions. Pain medication management processes particularly relevant to this context were getting prescriptions and obtaining medications. Responsibilities that fell primarily to patients and family caregivers included facilitating communication and coordination among multiple clinicians, overcoming barriers to access, and serving as a final safety checkpoint. Significant effort was required of patients and family caregivers to insure safe and effective pain medication management. Conclusion—Health systems issues related to access to needed analgesics, medication safety in outpatient settings, and the effort expended by oncology patients and their family caregivers require more attention in future research and healthcare reform initiatives

Changes in symptom clusters in patients undergoing radiation therapy

The goals of the study were to determine the occurrence rates for and the severity of symptoms at the middle, end, and 1 month after the completion of radiation therapy (RT), to determine the number and types of symptom clusters at these three time points, and to evaluate for changes over time in these symptom clusters. Symptom occurrence and severity were evaluated using the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale (MSAS) in a sample of patients (n = 160) who underwent RT for breast or prostate cancer. At each time point, an exploratory factor analysis was done to determine the number of symptom clusters (i.e., symptom factors) based on the MSAS symptom severity ratings. The majority of the patients were male and married with a mean age of 61.1 years. The five symptoms with the highest occurrence rates across all three time points were lack of energy, pain, difficulty sleeping, feeling drowsy, and sweats. Although the number of symptoms and the specific symptoms within each symptom cluster were not identical across the three time points, three relatively similar symptom clusters (i.e., “mood-cognitive” symptom cluster, “sickness-behavior” symptom cluster, “treatment-related”, or “pain” symptom cluster) were identified in this sample. The internal consistency coefficients for the mood-cognitive symptom cluster and sickness-behavior symptom cluster were adequate at ≥0.68. Three relatively stable symptom clusters were found across RT. The majority of the symptom cluster severity scores were significantly higher in patients with breast cancer compared to patients with prostate cancer

An evaluation of the factors that affect the health-related quality of life of children following myelosuppressive chemotherapy

PurposeThe purposes of this study, in children who were assessed 1 week after the administration of myelosuppressive chemotherapy were: to compare the total and subscale scores on a generic measure of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) to normative data from healthy children and describe the relationships between demographic, clinical, and symptom characteristics of children with cancer and generic and disease-specific dimensions of HRQOL.MethodsPatients (n = 61) were predominantly male (52.5%), minority (63.9%), and 14.7 years of age. Children completed the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale for 10- to 18-year olds, the PedsQL™ Generic and Cancer Modules, and the Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) scale 1 week after the start of a chemotherapy cycle.ResultsThe mean number of symptoms per patient was 10.6. Compared with the normative sample, children with cancer reported significantly lower scores for the total scale and all of the subscales except emotional and social functioning. No significant differences were found between any demographic characteristics and total or subscale scores on the generic or disease-specific measures of HRQOL. Lower KPS scores were associated with poorer generic and disease-specific HRQOL scores. In addition, a higher number of symptoms was associated with poorer generic and disease-specific HRQOL scores. Finally, higher symptom distress scores were associated with poorer generic and disease-specific HRQOL scores.ConclusionAmong the demographic, clinical, and symptom characteristics studied, poorer functional status and higher symptom burden were associated with significant decreases in HRQOL in children who received myelosuppressive chemotherapy

Pain Medication Management Processes Used by Oncology Outpatients and Family Caregivers Part I: Health Systems Contexts

Context—Oncology patients with persistent pain treated in outpatient settings and their family caregivers have significant responsibility for managing pain medications. However, little is known about their practical, day-to-day experiences with pain medication management. Objective—To describe day-to-day pain medication management from the perspectives of oncology outpatients and their family caregivers who participated in a randomized clinical trial of a psycho-educational intervention called the Pro-Self© Plus Pain Control Program. In this article, we focus on pain medication management by patients and family caregivers in the context of multiple, complex health systems. Methods—We qualitatively analyzed audio-recorded intervention sessions that included extensive dialogue between patients, family caregivers, and nurses about pain medication management during the 10-week intervention. Results—The health systems context for pain medication management included multiple complex systems for clinical care, reimbursement, and regulation of analgesic prescriptions. Pain medication management processes particularly relevant to this context were getting prescriptions and obtaining medications. Responsibilities that fell primarily to patients and family caregivers included facilitating communication and coordination among multiple clinicians, overcoming barriers to access, and serving as a final safety checkpoint. Significant effort was required of patients and family caregivers to insure safe and effective pain medication management. Conclusion—Health systems issues related to access to needed analgesics, medication safety in outpatient settings, and the effort expended by oncology patients and their family caregivers require more attention in future research and healthcare reform initiatives

Predictors of perceived breast cancer risk and the relation between perceived risk and breast cancer screening: A meta-analytic review

BACKGROUND: Perceived risk is a principal variable in theoretical models that attempt to predict the adoption of health-protective behaviors. METHODS: This meta-analysis synthesizes findings from 42 studies, identified in PubMed and PsycInfo from 1985 onward. Studies examined demographic and psychological variables as predictors of perceived breast cancer risk and the relationship between perceived risk and breast cancer screening. Statistical relationships, weighted for sample size, were transformed to effect sizes and 95% CIs. RESULTS: Women do not have accurate perceptions of their breast cancer risk (N = 5561, g = 1.10). Overall, they have an optimistic bias about their personal risk (g = 0.99). However, having a positive family history (N = 70660, g = 0.88), recruitment site, and measurement error confounded these results. Perceived risk is weakly influenced by age (N = 38000, g = 0.13) and education (N = 1979, g = 0.16), and is moderately affected by race/culture (N = 2192, g = 0.38) and worry (N = 6090, g = 0.49). There is an association between perceived risk and mammography screening (N = 52766, g = 0.19). It is not clear whether perceived risk influences adherence to breast self-examination. Women who perceived a higher breast cancer risk were more likely to pursue genetic testing or undergo prophylactic mastectomy. CONCLUSION: Perceived breast cancer risk depends on psychological and cognitive variables and influences adherence to mammography screening guidelines

Underestimation of breast cancer risk: Influence on screening behavior

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To describe perceived breast cancer risk, identify the percentage of women with inaccurate risk perceptions, and examine the influence of perceived and objective risk on screening behavior. DESIGN: Descriptive, correlational, cross-sectional. SETTING: Community settings in a metropolitan area on the western coast of the United States. SAMPLE: Multicultural sample of 184 English-speaking women (57% non-Caucasian, X age = 47 +/- 12 years) who have never been diagnosed with cancer. METHODS: Two perceived risk scales (verbal and comparative) and the Gail model were used to assess perceived and objective breast cancer risk, respectively. MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES: Perceived breast cancer risk, objective breast cancer risk, screening behavior. FINDINGS: Participants reported that they "probably will not" get breast cancer and that their risk was "somewhat lower" than average. Family history of breast cancer was a significant predictor of perceived risk. Demographic characteristics and objective risk factors were not associated with perceived risk. Most women at high risk for breast cancer (89%) underestimated their actual risk; fewer women with low to average risk for breast cancer (9%) overestimated their risk. Age, Gail scores, and health insurance status promoted breast cancer screening; underestimation of risk had the opposite effect. CONCLUSIONS: Inaccurate perceptions of risk do not promote optimal breast cancer screening. The finding has implications for most women at high risk for developing breast cancer who underestimate their risk. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: Oncology nurses can use risk assessment tools to provide individualized counseling regarding breast cancer risk factors and screening. Women at high risk who underestimate their risk could benefit from additional screening and from advances in cancer chemoprevention