Dataset Information

Psychological and behavioral approaches to cancer pain management.

ABSTRACT: This review examines evidence for psychological factors that affect pain across the cancer continuum from diagnosis through treatment and long-term survivorship or end of life. Evidence is convincing that emotional distress, depression, anxiety, uncertainty, and hopelessness interact with pain. Unrelieved pain can increase a desire for hastened death. Patients with cancer use many strategies to manage pain, with catastrophizing associated with increased pain and self-efficacy associated with lower pain reports. A variety of psychological and cognitive behavioral treatments can reduce pain severity and interference with function, as indicated in multiple meta-analyses and high-quality randomized controlled trials. Effective methods include education (with coping skills training), hypnosis, cognitive behavioral approaches, and relaxation with imagery. Exercise has been tested extensively in patients with cancer and long-term survivors, but few exercise studies have evaluated pain outcomes. In survivors post-treatment, yoga and hypnosis as well as exercise show promise for controlling pain. Although some of these treatments effectively reduce pain for patients with advanced disease, few have been tested in patients at the end of life. Given the clear indicators that psychological factors affect cancer pain and that psychological and behavioral treatments are effective in reducing varying types of pain for patients with active disease, these methods need further testing in cancer survivors post-treatment and in patients with end-stage disease. Multidisciplinary teams are essential in oncology settings to integrate analgesic care and expertise in psychological and behavioral interventions in standard care for symptom management, including pain.

SUBMITTER: Syrjala KL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4031190 | biostudies-other | 2014 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundNeuropathic pain is thought to arise from damage to the somatosensory nervous system. Its prevalence is increasing in line with many chronic disorders such as diabetes. All treatments have limited effectiveness. Given the evidence regarding psychological treatment for distress and disability in people with various chronic pain conditions, we were interested to investigate whether psychological treatments have any effects for those with chronic neuropathic pain.ObjectivesTo assess the effects of psychological treatments on pain experience, disability, mood, and health-care use in adults with chronic neuropathic pain.Search methodsWe searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in any language in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO, from database inception to March 2015.Selection criteriaFull publications of RCTs on psychological interventions for neuropathic pain. Trials had to have lasted at least three months, had at least 20 participants in each arm at the end of treatment, and compared a psychological intervention with any active or inactive intervention.Data collection and analysisWe used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.Main resultsTwo small studies (enrolling a total of 105 participants) met the inclusion criteria. One was a standard cognitive behavioural treatment (CBT) programme for 61 people with pain from spinal cord injury, followed up for three months, and compared with a waiting list. The other was weekly group psychotherapy for 44 people with burning mouth syndrome, compared with a daily placebo tablet. The overall risk of bias was high in both trials.The CBT study assessed participants for pain, disability, mood, and quality of life, with improvement in treatment and control groups. However, there was no more improvement in the treatment group than in the control for any outcome, either post-treatment or at follow-up. The group psychotherapy study only assessed pain, classifying participants by pain severity. There is a lack of evidence on the efficacy and safety of psychological interventions for people with neuropathic pain.Authors' conclusionsThere is insufficient evidence of the efficacy and safety of psychological interventions for chronic neuropathic pain. The two available studies show no benefit of treatment over either waiting list or placebo control groups.

Project description:ImportanceInsomnia is highly prevalent in patients with nonspecific chronic spinal pain (nCSP). Given the close interaction between insomnia and pain, targeting sleep problems during therapy could improve treatment outcomes.ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBTi) integrated in best-evidence pain management (BEPM) vs BEPM only in patients with nCSP and insomnia.Design, setting, and participantsA multicenter randomized clinical trial with 1-year follow-up was conducted between April 10, 2018, and April 30, 2022. Data and statistical analysis were performed between May 1, 2022, and April 24, 2023. Patients with nCSP and insomnia were evaluated using self-report and at-home polysomnography, to exclude underlying sleep pathologic factors. Participants were treated at the University Hospital Brussels or University Hospital Ghent, Belgium. Intention-to-treat analysis was performed.InterventionsParticipants were randomized to either CBTi-BEPM or BEPM only. Both groups received 18 treatment sessions over 14 weeks. The CBTi-BEPM treatment included 6 CBTi sessions and 12 BEPM sessions. The BEPM treatment included pain neuroscience education (3 sessions) and exercise therapy (9 sessions in the CBTi-BEPM group, 15 sessions in the BEPM-only group).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was change in mean pain intensity (assessed with Brief Pain Inventory [BPI]) at 12 months after the intervention. Exploratory secondary outcomes included several pain- and sleep-related outcomes. Blinded outcome assessment took place at baseline, posttreatment, and at 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-up.ResultsA total of 123 patients (mean [SD] age, 40.2 [11.18] years; 84 women [68.3%]) were included in the trial. In 99 participants (80.5%) with 12-month BPI data, the mean pain intensity at 12 months decreased by 1.976 points (reduction of 40%) in the CBTi-BEPM group and 1.006 points (reduction of 24%) points in the BEPM-only group. At 12 months, there was no significant difference in pain intensity change between groups (mean group difference, 0.970 points; 95% CI, -0.051 to 1.992; Cohen d, 2.665). Treatment with CBTi-BEPM resulted in a response for BPI average pain with a number needed to treat (NNT) of 4 observed during 12 months. On a preliminary basis, CBTi-BEPM was, consistently over time and analyses, more effective than BEPM only for improving insomnia severity (Cohen d, 4.319-8.961; NNT for response ranging from 2 to 4, and NNT for remission ranging from 5 to 12), sleep quality (Cohen d, 3.654-6.066), beliefs about sleep (Cohen d, 5.324-6.657), depressive symptoms (Cohen d, 2.935-3.361), and physical fatigue (Cohen d, 2.818-3.770). No serious adverse effects were reported.Conclusions and relevanceIn this randomized clinical trial, adding CBTi to BEPM did not further improve pain intensity reduction for patients with nCSP and comorbid insomnia more than BEPM alone. Yet, as CBTi-BEPM led to significant and clinically important changes in insomnia severity and sleep quality, CBTi integrated in BEPM should be considered in the treatment of patients with nCSP and comorbid insomnia. Further research can investigate the patient characteristics that moderate the response to CBTi-BEPM in terms of pain-related outcomes, as understanding of these moderators may be of utmost clinical importance.Trial registrationClinical Trials.gov Identifier: NCT03482856.

Dataset Information

Psychological and behavioral approaches to cancer pain management.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets