Dataset Information

Missed Opportunities: A Mixed-Methods Analysis of CAM Discussions and Practices in the Management of Pain in Oncology.

ABSTRACT: Treatment of pain in cancer is a clinical priority. Many cancer patients seek and use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies.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.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.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.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.

SUBMITTER: Leppin AL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5107326 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Missed Opportunities: A Mixed-Methods Analysis of CAM Discussions and Practices in the Management of Pain in Oncology.

Leppin Aaron L AL Fernandez Cara C Tilburt Jon C JC

Journal of pain and symptom management 20160930 5

<h4>Context</h4>Treatment of pain in cancer is a clinical priority. Many cancer patients seek and use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies.<h4>Objectives</h4>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.<h4>Methods</h4>We used quantitative criteria to identify patients with high, self-reported pain and reduced quality of life. For these patients, we merged ...[more]

PMID: 27693895

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundNeonates in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) undergo a multitude of painful and stressful procedures during the first days of life. Stress from this pain can lead to neurodevelopmental problems that manifest in later childhood and should be prevented.ObjectiveTo determine the number of painful procedures performed per day for each neonate, to verify documentation of painful procedures performed, and to, subsequently, note missed opportunities for providing pain relief to neonates.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study at a level III NICU located in a rural part of western India. A total of 69 neonates admitted for more than 24 h were included. Twenty-nine neonates were directly observed for a total of 24 h each, and another 40 neonatal records were retrospectively reviewed for the neonate's first 7 days of admission. All stressful and painful procedures performed on the neonate were recorded. Also recorded were any pharmaceutical pain relief agents or central nervous system depressants administered to the neonate before or at the time of the procedures. Average nurse-patient ratio was also calculated. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.ResultsA documentation deficit of 2.2% was observed. The average nurse-patient ratio was 1.53:1. A total of 13711 procedures were recorded, yielding 44.1 (38.1 stressful, 3.8 mildly painful, and 2.2 moderately painful) procedures per patient day. Common stressful procedures were position changing (2501) and temperature recording (2208). Common mildly and moderately painful procedures were heel prick (757) and endotracheal suctioning (526), respectively. Use of pharmacological agents coincided with 33.48% of the procedures. The choice of drug and time of administration were inappropriate, indicating that the pharmacological agents were intended not for pain relief but rather for a coexisting pathology or as sedation from ventilation with no analgesia.ConclusionStressful procedures are common in the NICU; mildly and moderately painful procedures fairly common. Almost two-thirds of the times, no pharmaceutical pain relief methods were used, and when administered, the pharmaceutical agents were seldom intended for pain relief; this implies poor pain management practices and emphasizes the imperative need for educating NICU nurses, residents, fellows, and attendings.

Project description:Healthcare workers want to listen more to patients and their carers in all sorts of areas of healthcare. This can include choosing topics for medical research. We looked at how patients and carers have helped to choose topics for research about type I diabetes. We aimed to find out if, and why, researchers often rejected their choices. We looked at a project which brought together patients, carers and healthcare workers to choose topics for research about type 1 diabetes. The group first asked patients, carers and healthcare workers to suggest ideas for research questions. But the group had to follow rules about what counted as a good research question. Some people's ideas did not count as good research questions, and they were rejected at the start. We looked at who were most likely to have their ideas rejected at the start. We found that patients and carers were most likely to have a suggestion rejected. Then we looked at the rejected questions in detail. They were mostly about curing diabetes, preventing diabetes and understanding how diabetes works. There were also some questions about access to medicines and the quality of care. Researchers should ask patients and carers for help deciding what counts as a good research question from the start of projects like these. We should also think about what might be getting in the way of patients and carers making more of a difference in research.Background Patients and carers are increasingly involved in deciding on topics for medical research. However, so far, it has been difficult to gain an accurate picture of the impact of such involvement because of poor reporting and evaluation in published studies to date. This study aimed to explore how a partnership of patients, carers, healthcare professionals and organisations identified questions for future research and why patients and carers had a limited impact on this process. Methods In the first stage of the partnership process, relevant service users and providers (including patients, carers, healthcare professionals and voluntary organisations) were invited to submit suggested research questions about the treatment of type 1 diabetes, via a national online and paper survey. The partnership followed formal protocols that defined a researchable question. This meant that many respondents' suggested research questions were rejected at the start of the process. We analysed survey submissions to find out which groups of respondents were most likely to have their suggestions rejected and what these suggestions were about. Results Five hundred eighty-three respondents submitted 1143 suggested research questions, of which 249 (21.8 %) were rejected at the first stage. Respondents with lived experience of this long-term condition (patients and carers) were more likely than those without lived experience to submit a research question that would be rejected (35.6 vs. 16.5 %; p?<?0.0005). Among the rejected questions submitted by patients and carers, there were several key themes: questions about cure, cause and prevention, understanding the disease, healthcare policy and economics. Conclusions In this case study, early decisions about what constituted a researchable question restricted patients' and carers' contributions to priority setting. When discussions about a project's remit take place before service users are involved, researchers risk distorting the potential impact of involvement. Impact assessments should consider not only the differences patients and carers make to research but also the differences they could have made in the absence of systemic barriers. We recommend that initiatives aimed at involving patients and carers in identifying research questions involve them as early as possible, including in decisions about how and why suggested research questions are selected or rejected.

Project description:BackgroundBasket trials are increasingly used in oncology drug development for early signal detection, accelerated tumor-agnostic approvals, and prioritization of promising tumor types in selected patients with the same mutation or biomarker. Participants are grouped into so-called baskets according to tumor type, allowing investigators to identify tumors with promising responses to treatment for further study. However, it remains a question as to whether and how much the adoption of basket trial designs in oncology have translated into patient benefits, increased pace and scale of clinical development, and de-risking of downstream confirmatory trials.MethodsInnovation in basket trial design and analysis includes methods that borrow information across tumor types to increase the quality of statistical inference within each tumor type. We build on the existing systematic reviews of basket trials in oncology to discuss the current practices and landscape. We conceptually illustrate recent innovative methods for basket trials, with application to actual data from recently completed basket trials. We explore and discuss the extent to which innovative basket trials can be used to de-risk future trials through their ability to aid prioritization of promising tumor types for subsequent clinical development.ResultsWe found increasing adoption of basket trial design in oncology, but largely in the design of single-arm phase II trials with a very low adoption of innovative statistical methods. Furthermore, the current practice of basket trial design, which does not consider its impact on the clinical development plan, may lead to a missed opportunity in improving the probability of success of a future trial. Gating phase II with a phase Ib basket trial reduced the size of phase II trials, and losses in the probability of success as a result of not using innovative methods may not be recoverable by running a larger phase II trial.ConclusionInnovative basket trial methods can reduce the size of early phase clinical trials, with sustained improvement in the probability of success of the clinical development plan. We need to do more as a community to improve the adoption of these methods.

Project description:BackgroundThe wide heterogeneity of available cannabis products makes it difficult for physicians to appropriately guide patients. In the current study, our objective was to characterize naturalistic cannabis use routines and explore associations between routines and reported benefits from consuming cannabis.MethodsWe performed a mixed methods analysis of n=1087 cross-sectional survey responses from adults with self-reported chronic pain using cannabis for symptom management in the USA and Canada. First, we qualitatively analyzed responses to an open-ended question that assessed typical cannabis use routines, including administration routes, cannabinoid content, and timing. We then sub-grouped responses into categories based on inhalation (smoking, vaporizing) vs. non-inhalation (e.g., edibles). Finally, we investigated subgroups perceptions of how cannabis affected pain, overall health, and use of medications (e.g., substituting for opioids, benzodiazepines). Substitutions were treated as a count of medication classes, while responses for both pain and health were analyzed continuously, with - 2 indicating health declining a lot or pain increasing a lot and 2 indicating that health improved a lot or pain decreased a lot.ResultsRoutines varied widely in terms of administration routes, cannabinoid content, and use timing. Overall, 18.8%, 36.2%, and 45% used non-inhalation, inhalation, and non-inhalation + inhalation routes, respectively. Those who used inhalation routes were younger (mean age 46.5 [inhalation] and 49.2 [non-inhalation + inhalation] vs. 56.3 [inhalation], F=36.1, p<0.001), while a higher proportion of those who used non-inhalation routes were female (72.5% non-inhalation vs. 48.3% inhalation and 65.3% non-inhalation + inhalation, X2=59.6, p<0.001). THC-rich products were typically used at night, while CBD-rich products were more often used during the day. While all participants reported similarly decreased pain, participants using non-inhalation + inhalation administration routes reported larger improvements in health than the non-inhalation (mean difference = 0.32, 95% CI: 0.07-0.37, p<0.001) and inhalation subgroups (mean difference = 0.22, 95% CI: 0.07-0.37, p=0.001). Similarly, the non-inhalation + inhalation group had significantly more medication substitutions than those using non-inhalation (mean difference = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.33-0.90, p<0.001) and inhalation administration routes (mean difference = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.22-0.69, p<0.001), respectively.ConclusionsSubgrouping medical cannabis patients based on administration route profile may provide useful categories for future studies examining the risks and benefits of medical cannabis.

Project description:BackgroundWhen children suffer acute pain, the ambulance service is often involved to provide initial assessment, treatment, and transport. Several predictors of effective pain management have been identified, including children who are younger (0-5 years), administered analgesics, and living in homes from more affluent areas.ObjectiveTo explain previously identified predictors of effective prehospital pain management in children.DesignMixed methods sequential explanatory study.Setting and participantsEast Midlands Ambulance Service National Health Service Trust paramedics and emergency medical technicians (EMTs) participated in face-to-face semi-structured interviews. These were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and coded using thematic analysis. Meta-inferences were generated and illustrated within a joint display.ResultsTwelve clinicians (9 paramedics and 3 EMTs) were interviewed. Median (interquartile range) age was 43.5 years (41.5, 45.75), 58% were male (n = 7) and 58% were parents (n = 7). Possible explanations were provided for all predictors. Younger children were perceived to express more emotion, were easier to distract, and lived more in the moment than their older counterparts, which explained why younger children were more likely to achieve effective pain management. Analgesics were perceived to have a psychosocial benefit in addition to the pharmacological action. Ambulance clinicians felt that children living in more affluent areas were more likely to achieve effective pain management because the kempt environment facilitated assessment and management and clinicians spent more time on scene; this allowed more time for analgesics to take effect. Participants perceived paramedics to be more confident, and it was found that paramedics were older, more experienced, had a greater scope of practice, and spent more time on scene than EMTs.ConclusionPrehospital pain management in children could be improved by facilitating and prioritizing analgesic administration and by ambulance services ensuring a paramedic, or highly trained clinician, is present on each vehicle, necessitating long-term commitment to staff development.

Project description:BackgroundHousehold chicken production presents an opportunity to promote child nutrition, but the benefits might be offset by increased environmental contamination. Using household surveys, direct observations, and in-depth interviews with woman caregivers, we sought to describe the relationship between chicken management practices and household exposure to environmental contamination, and assess barriers to adopting improved husbandry practices.MethodsFirst, we analyzed baseline data from 973 households raising chickens in the two interventions arms from the Agriculture-to-Nutrition (ATONU) study in Ethiopia to assess the relationship between animal management practices and environmental exposures. Second, we conducted six-hour direct observations of children's environmental exposures in 18 households. Among these households, we analyzed in-depth interviews with child caregivers.ResultsQuantitative analyses showed that households raised approximately 11 chickens, had animal feces visible on the property 67% of the time, and children's hands were visibly dirty 38% of the time. Households with more chickens had lower exposure to animal feces. Having a chicken coop increased the risk of observing animal feces on the property by 30%, but among those with a coop, having an enclosed coop reduced that risk by 83%. Coops that were enclosed, had fencing, and were located further from homes were associated with a reduced risk of observing animal feces and an increased likelihood of children having clean hands. Direct observations showed that chicken coops were often poorly designed or not used. On average, 3 to 5 chickens were inside homes at a time, and livestock and domestic animals were frequently inside of houses and interacting with young children. In-depth interviews revealed that protection of animals, maintenance of household cleanliness and health, type of chicken (local versus improved) and resource constraints influenced management decisions.ConclusionsImprovements in chicken management practices could mitigate the exposure of household members to environmental contamination. Our findings highlight the need for training and resources to promote safe animal husbandry practices and optimal child health in nutrition-sensitive livestock projects.Trial registrationClinical trials number: NCT03152227 ; Retrospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov on May 12, 2012.

Dataset Information

Missed Opportunities: A Mixed-Methods Analysis of CAM Discussions and Practices in the Management of Pain in Oncology.

Publications

Missed Opportunities: A Mixed-Methods Analysis of CAM Discussions and Practices in the Management of Pain in Oncology.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets