Search

Background: Pain is a significant problem for many people with advanced disease or a serious illness. Culture and ethnicity can affect the experience and management of pain. However, there is limited research in South Asian communities in the UK on their experiences of pain. The aim of this study is to explore the experiences and attitudes of patients and family carers from South Asian communities about pain and its management within advanced disease or serious illness., Methods: Qualitative thematic analysis based on descriptive phenomenology (Sundler et al. 2019). Qualitative semi-structured interviews with patients or family carers from South Asian communities (N = 15). Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed using an inductive approach. Public and Patient Involvement representatives from British South Asian communities were consulted for guidance., Results: There were five key themes from the interviews: The importance of communication about pain with healthcare professionals; Concerns about taking pain medication; Personal resilience, privacy and self-management; Gender, culture and pain; Home pain management as struggle and frustration., Conclusion: To improve pain management for people from South Asian communities with advanced disease or a serious illness, there are a number of important issues for healthcare professionals from palliative and primary care services to address. These include: greater awareness around people's fears and concerns about pain medication; their potential use of alternative pain management strategies; and cultural issues such as resilience, privacy, dignity and gender roles. Effective communication between doctors, patients and family members could be improved by using a 'cultural humility' model; providing clear and accessible pain medication information; understanding and taking account of people with both low, and medium levels, of English language proficiency; and improving patient trust. Additionally, improvements to out of hours services could improve pain management for all patients managing their pain at home., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Racial disparities in pain management have been observed in the USA since the 1990s in settings such as the emergency department and oncology. However, the palliative care context is not well described, and little research has focused outside of the USA or on advanced disease. This review takes a cross-national approach to exploring pain management in advanced disease for people of different racial and ethnic groups., Methods: Mixed methods systematic review. The primary outcome measure was differences in receiving pain medication between people from different racial and ethnic groups. Five electronic databases were searched. Two researchers independently assessed quality using JBI checklists, weighted evidence, and extracted data. The quantitative findings on the primary outcome measure were cross-tabulated, and a thematic analysis was undertaken on the mixed methods studies. Themes were formulated into a conceptual/thematic matrix. Patient representatives from UK ethnically diverse groups were consulted. PRISMA 2020 guidelines were followed., Results: Eighteen papers were included in the primary outcome analysis. Three papers were rated 'High' weight of evidence, and 17/18 (94%) were based in the USA. Ten of the eighteen (56%) found no significant difference in the pain medication received between people of different ethnic groups. Forty-six papers were included in the mixed methods synthesis; 41/46 (89%) were based in the USA. Key themes: Patients from different ethnically diverse groups had concerns about tolerance, addiction and side effects. The evidence also showed: cultural and social doctor-patient communication issues; many patients with unmet pain management needs; differences in pain assessment by racial group, and two studies found racial and ethnic stereotyping., Conclusions: There was not enough high quality evidence to draw a conclusion on differences in receiving pain medication for people with advanced disease from different racial and ethnic groups. The mixed methods findings showed commonalities in fears about pain medication side effects, tolerance and addiction across diverse ethnic groups. However, these fears may have different foundations and are differently prioritised according to culture, faith, educational and social factors. There is a need to develop culturally competent pain management to address doctor-patient communication issues and patients' pain management concerns., Trial Registration: PROSPERO- CRD42020167890 ., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Cancer pain is a common symptom experienced by patients, caused either by the disease or its treatment. Morphine remains the most effective and recommended treatment for cancer pain. However, cancer patients still do not receive appropriate management for their pain, and under-treatment is common. Lack of knowledge and negative attitudes towards cancer pain and analgesia among professionals, patients and family caregivers are reported as one of the most common barriers to effective cancer pain management (CPM). To systematically review research on the nature and impact of attitudes and knowledge towards CPM, a systematic literature search of 6 databases (the Cochrane library, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science and EMBASE) was undertaken in July 2018. Additionally, hand-searching of Google, Google Scholar and reference lists was conducted. The inclusion criteria were adult (18-65 years of age), studies which included attitudes and knowledge towards CPM, studies written in English, published literature only and cross-sectional design. Included studies were critically appraised by two researchers independently using the Joanna Briggs Institute Analytical Cross Sectional Studies Assessment (JBI-ACSSA). A total of 36 studies met the inclusion criteria. The main finding was that among professionals, patients, caregivers and the public there were similar attitudinal barriers to effective CPM. The most commonly cited barriers were fear of drug addiction, tolerance of medication and side effects of opioids. We also found differences between professional groups (physicians versus nurses) and between different countries based on their potential exposure to palliative care training and services. There are still barriers to effective CPM, which might result in unrelieved cancer pain. Therefore, more educational programmes and training for professionals on CPM are needed. Furthermore, patients, caregivers, and the public need more general awareness and adequate level of knowledge about CPM.

Objectives: There is increased interest in cannabinoids for cancer pain management and legislative changes are in progress in many countries. This study aims to determine the beneficial and adverse effects of cannabis/cannabinoids compared with placebo/other active agents for the treatment of cancer-related pain in adults., Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis to identify randomised controlled trials of cannabinoids compared with placebo/other active agents for the treatment of cancer-related pain in adults to determine the effect on pain intensity (primary outcome) and adverse effects, including dropouts. Searches included Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane and grey literature. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed., Results: We identified 2805 unique records, of which six randomised controlled trials were included in this systematic review (n=1460 participants). Five studies were included in the meta-analysis (1442 participants). All had a low risk of bias. There was no difference between cannabinoids and placebo for the difference in the change in average Numeric Rating Scale pain scores (mean difference -0.21 (-0.48 to 0.07, p=0.14)); this remained when only phase III studies were meta-analysed: mean difference -0.02 (-0.21 to 0.16, p=0.80). Cannabinoids had a higher risk of adverse events when compared with placebo, especially somnolence (OR 2.69 (1.54 to 4.71), p<0.001) and dizziness (OR 1.58 (0.99 to 2.51), p=0.05). No treatment-related deaths were reported. Dropouts and mortality rates were high., Conclusions: Studies with a low risk of bias showed that for adults with advanced cancer, the addition of cannabinoids to opioids did not reduce cancer pain., Trial Registration Number: CRD42018107662., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Purpose: The use of health information technology (HIT) to support patient and health professional communication is emerging as a core component of modern cancer care. Approaches to HIT development for cancer care are often underreported, despite their implementation in complex, multidisciplinary environments, typically supporting patients with multifaceted needs. We describe the development and evaluation of an e-health tool for pain management in patients with advanced cancer, arising from collaboration between health researchers and a commercial software development company., Methods: We adopted a research-led development process, involving patients with advanced cancer and their health professionals, focusing on use within real clinical settings. A software development approach (disciplined agile delivery) was combined with health science research methods (ie, diary studies, face-to-face interviews, questionnaires, prototyping, think aloud, process reviews, and pilots). Three software iterations were managed through three disciplined agile delivery phases to develop PainCheck and prepare it for use in a clinical trial., Results: Findings from development phases (inception, elaboration, and construction) informed the design and implementation of PainCheck. During the transition phase, where PainCheck was evaluated in a randomized clinical trial, there was variation in the extent of engagement by patients and health professionals. Prior personal experience and confidence with HIT led to a gatekeeping effect among health professionals, who were reluctant to introduce PainCheck to patients. Patients who did use PainCheck seemed to benefit, and no usability issues were reported., Conclusion: Health science research methods seemed to help in the development of PainCheck, although a more rigorous application of implementation science methodologies might help to elucidate further the barriers and facilitators to adoption and inform an evidence-based plan for future implementation.

Pain experienced by advanced cancer patients is often poorly controlled due to inadequate assessment. We aimed to test an electronic pain monitoring system (PainCheck) with advanced cancer patients and health professionals. In all, 29 participants (13 patients and 16 health professionals (n = 16)) used PainCheck while thinking their thoughts aloud. After the think aloud, both groups were asked about their experiences. Think-aloud and semi-structured interview data were analysed using framework analysis. Both groups were generally positive about PainCheck and found it easy to understand but they had concerns about clinical integration. Their concerns related to impact on workload, how lack of response may affect patient care and ability to engage with and use the technology. PainCheck has the capacity to be useful in clinical practice. For integration to be successful, patients and health professionals need guidance on how to use PainCheck and the expectations of users need to be clarified.

Approaches to pain management using electronic systems are being developed for use in palliative care. This article explores palliative care patients' perspectives on managing and talking about pain, the role of technology in their lives and how technology could support pain management. Face-to-face interviews were used to understand patient needs and concerns to inform how electronic systems are developed. A total of 13 interviews took place with a convenience sample of community-based patients with advanced cancer receiving palliative care through a hospice. Data were analysed using framework analysis. Four meta-themes emerged: Technology could be part of my care; I'm trying to understand what is going on; My pain is ever-changing and difficult to control; and I'm selective about who to tell about pain. Patients described technology as peripheral to existing processes of care. To be relevant, systems may need to take account of the complexity of a patient's pain experience alongside existing relationships with health professionals.

Background and Objective: Pain is a common symptom in patients who survive cancer and in those who live with progressive advanced disease. Evidence from meta-analyses suggests that pain remains poorly controlled for a large proportion of patients; barriers to good management include poor assessment of pain, inadequate support for patient self-management and late or inadequate access to strong opioid analgesia in those with advanced disease., Methods: The European Pain Federation (EFIC) established a Task Force in 2017 which convened a European group of experts, drawn from a diverse range of relevant clinical disciplines, to prepare a position paper on appropriate standards for the management of cancer-related pain. The expert panel reviewed the available literature and made recommendations using the GRADE system to combine quality of evidence with strength of recommendation. The panel took into account the desirable and undesirable effects of the management recommendation, including the cost and inconvenience of each when deciding the recommendation., Results and Conclusions: The 10 standards presented are aimed to improve cancer pain management and reduce variation in practice across Europe. The Task Force believes that adoption of these standards by all 37 countries will promote the quality of care of patients with cancer-related pain and reduce unnecessary suffering., Significance: Pain affects up to 40% of cancer survivors and affects at least 66% of patients with advanced progressive disease, many of whom experience poor pain control. These 10 standards are aimed to improve cancer pain management, promote the quality of care of patients and reduce variation across Europe., (© 2018 European Pain Federation - EFIC®.)

Background: Studies have shown that more than half of patients with advanced progressive diseases approaching the end-of-life report pain and that pain relief for these patients is poorest at home compared to other care settings such as acute care facilities and hospice. Although home is the most common preferred place of death, the majority of deaths occur outside the home. Specialist palliative care is associated with improved quality of life, but systematic reviews of RCTs have failed to show a consistent association with better pain relief. The aim of this study was to examine the factors associated with good pain relief at home in the last 3 months of life for people with advanced progressive disease., Methods: Data were obtained from the National Bereavement Survey in England, a cross-sectional post-bereavement survey of a stratified random sample of 246,763 deaths which were registered in England from 2011 to 2015. From 110,311 completed surveys (45% response rate), the analysis was based on individual-level data from 43,509 decedents who were cared for at home before death., Results: Decedents who experienced good pain relief at home before death were significantly more likely to have received specialist palliative care (adjusted OR = 2.67; 95% CI, 2.62 to 2.72) and to have a recorded preferred place of death (adjusted OR = 1.87; 95% CI, 1.84 to 1.90) compared to those who did not. Good pain relief was more likely to be reported by a spouse or partner of the decedents compared to reports from their son or daughter (adjusted OR = 1.50, 95% CI, 1.47 to 1.53)., Conclusion: This study indicates that patients at home who are approaching the end-of-life experience substantially better pain relief if they receive specialist palliative care and their preferred place of death is recorded regardless of their disease aetiology.

Objectives: Uncontrolled pain in advanced cancer is a common problem and has significant impact on individuals' quality of life and use of healthcare resources. Interventions to help manage pain at the end of life are available, but there is limited economic evidence to support their wider implementation. We conducted a case study economic evaluation of two pain self-management interventions (PainCheck and Tackling Cancer Pain Toolkit [TCPT]) compared with usual care., Methods: We generated a decision-analytic model to facilitate the evaluation. This modelled the survival of individuals at the end of life as they moved through pain severity categories. Intervention effectiveness was based on published meta-analyses results. The evaluation was conducted from the perspective of the U.K. health service provider and reported cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY)., Results: PainCheck and TCPT were cheaper (respective incremental costs -GBP148 [-EUR168.53] and -GBP474 [-EUR539.74]) and more effective (respective incremental QALYs of 0.010 and 0.013) than usual care. There was a 65 percent and 99.5 percent chance of cost-effectiveness for PainCheck and TCPT, respectively. Results were relatively robust to sensitivity analyses. The most important driver of cost-effectiveness was level of pain reduction (intervention effectiveness). Although cost savings were modest per patient, these were considerable when accounting for the number of potential intervention beneficiaries., Conclusions: Educational and monitoring/feedback interventions have the potential to be cost-effective. Economic evaluations based on estimates of effectiveness from published meta-analyses and using a decision modeling approach can support commissioning decisions and implementation of pain management strategies.

Introduction: For patients with advanced cancer, research shows that pain is frequent, burdensome and undertreated. Evidence-based approaches to support cancer pain management have been developed but have not been implemented within the context of the UK National Health Service. This protocol is for a pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) to assess feasibility, acceptability, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness for a multicomponent intervention for pain management in patients with advanced cancer., Methods and Analysis: This trial will assess the feasibility of implementation and uptake of evidence-based interventions, developed and piloted as part of the Improving the Management of Pain from Advanced Cancer in the Community Programme grant, into routine clinical practice and determine whether there are potential differences with respect to patient-rated pain, patient pain knowledge and experience, healthcare use, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. 160 patients will receive either the intervention (usual care plus supported self-management) delivered within the oncology clinic and palliative care services by locally assigned community palliative care nurses, consisting of a self-management educational intervention and eHealth intervention for routine pain assessment and monitoring; or usual care. The primary outcomes are to assess implementation and uptake of the interventions, and differences in terms of pain severity. Secondary outcomes include pain interference, participant pain knowledge and experience, and cost-effectiveness. Outcome assessment will be blinded and patient-reported outcome measures collected via post at 6 and 12 weeks following randomisation., Ethics and Dissemination: This RCT has the potential to significantly influence National Health Service delivery to community-based patients with pain from advanced cancer. We aim to provide definitive evidence of whether two simple interventions delivered by community palliative care nurse in palliative care that support-self-management are clinically effective and cost-effective additions to standard community palliative care., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN18281271; Pre-results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Background: Pain from advanced cancer remains prevalent, severe and often under-treated., Aim: The aim of this study was to conduct a discrete choice experiment with patients to understand their preferences for pain management services and inform service development., Methods: Focus groups were used to develop the attributes and levels of the discrete choice experiment. The attributes were: waiting time, type of healthcare professional, out-of-pocket costs, side-effect control, quality of communication, quality of information and pain control. Patients completed the discrete choice experiment along with clinical and health-related quality of life questions. Conditional and mixed logit models were used to analyse the data., Results: Patients with cancer pain (n = 221) and within palliative care services completed the survey (45% were female, mean age 64.6 years; age range 21-92 years). The most important aspects of pain management were: good pain control, zero out-of-pocket costs and good side-effect control. Poor or moderate pain control and £30 costs drew the highest negative preferences. Respondents preferred control of side effects and provision of better information and communication, over access to certain healthcare professionals. Those with lower health-related quality of life were less willing to wait for treatment and willing to incur higher costs. The presence of a carer influenced preferences., Conclusions: Outcome attributes were more important than process attributes but the latter were still valued. Thus, supporting self-management, for example by providing better information on pain may be a worthwhile endeavour. However, service provision may need to account for individual characteristics given the heterogeneity in preferences.

Background: Poor pain assessment is a barrier to effective pain control. There is growing interest internationally in the development and implementation of remote monitoring technologies to enhance assessment in cancer and chronic disease contexts. Findings describe the development and testing of pain monitoring systems, but research identifying the needs of health professionals to implement routine monitoring systems within clinical practice is limited., Aim: To inform the development and implementation strategy of an electronic pain monitoring system, PainCheck, by understanding palliative care professionals' needs when integrating PainCheck into routine clinical practice., Design: Qualitative study using face-to-face interviews. Data were analysed using framework analysis Setting/participants: Purposive sample of health professionals managing the palliative care of patients living in the community Results: A total of 15 interviews with health professionals took place. Three meta-themes emerged from the data: (1) uncertainties about integration of PainCheck and changes to current practice, (2) appraisal of current practice and (3) pain management is everybody's responsibility Conclusion: Even the most sceptical of health professionals could see the potential benefits of implementing an electronic patient-reported pain monitoring system. Health professionals have reservations about how PainCheck would work in practice. For optimal use, PainCheck needs embedding within existing electronic health records. Electronic pain monitoring systems have the potential to enable professionals to support patients' pain management more effectively but only when barriers to implementation are appropriately identified and addressed.

Background: Despite advances in treatment of pain in advanced cancer, it remains a major source of suffering with adverse effects on patients' life quality. There is increasing understanding of its multi-dimensional nature and the variable responsiveness of medication to complex pain. Less clear is how patients and their caregivers respond to and manage pain complexity., Aim: To explore patients' and carers' experiences of advanced cancer pain and the processes that they engage in to manage pain., Design: Qualitative study employing face-to-face interviews at two time points and audio diaries. Data were analysed using grounded theory strategies., Setting/participants: Purposive sample of 21 advanced cancer patients and 16 carers from oncology outpatients in a tertiary cancer centre and a hospice., Results: Three distinct patterns of pain were discerned in patients' accounts, distinguishable in terms of complexity, severity, transiency and degree of perceived control over pain. Pain was dynamic reflecting changes in the disease process, access to and effectiveness of pain relief. For patients and carers, neither pain relief nor expertise in pain management is secured once and for all. The main drivers of help-seeking and action by patients to manage pain were the sensory experiences of pain and meaning attached to it, not beliefs about analgesia., Conclusion: The complex and dynamic nature of pain and how it was understood shaped help-seeking and pain management. Variable effectiveness of pain relief for different pain types were challenging for patients and professionals in achieving relief., (© The Author(s) 2016.)

Background: Information and communication technology (ICT) systems are being developed for electronic symptom reporting across different stages of the cancer trajectory with research in palliative care at an early stage., Aim/design: This paper presents the first systematic search of the literature to review existing ICT systems intended to support management of pain in palliative care patients with cancer. The review was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses., Data Sources: Four databases (Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Healthcare Management Information Consortium) from 1990 to December 2012 were searched, with exclusion of papers based on their description of ICT systems and language used., Results: 24 articles met the inclusion criteria, many of which reported the use of non-experimental research designs. Studies were identified at different stages of development with no systems having reached implementation. Most systems captured pain as part of quality-of-life measurement with wide variation in approaches to pain assessment., Conclusions: ICT systems for symptom reporting are emerging in the palliative care context. Future development of ICT systems need to increase the quality and scale of development work, consider how recommendations for pain measurement can be integrated and explore how to effectively use system feedback with patients., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)

Clinical Question: Is oxycodone associated with greater efficacy and fewer adverse events compared with alternative analgesics for cancer pain?, Bottom Line: Oxycodone was not associated with superior cancer pain relief or fewer adverse effects compared with other strong opioids, such as morphine or oxymorphone. However, the quality of the evidence was low.

Background: This is an update of a review first published in The Cochrane Library in Issue 3, 2013. Cancer-related pain places a heavy burden on public health with related high expenditure. Severe pain is associated with a decreased quality of life in patients with cancer. A significant proportion of patients with cancer-related pain are under-treated. There is a need for more effective control of cancer-related pain. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) may have a role in pain management. The effectiveness and safety of SCS for patients with cancer-related pain is currently unknown., Objectives: This systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of SCS for cancer-related pain compared with standard care using conventional analgesic medication. We also appraised risk and potential adverse events associated with the use of SCS., Search Methods: This is an update of a review first published in The Cochrane Library in Issue 3, 2013. The search strategy for the update was the same as in the original review. We searched the following bibliographic databases in order to identify relevant studies: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library; MEDLINE; EMBASE; and CBM (Chinese Biomedical Database) in October 2014. We also handsearched relevant journals. There were no language restrictions., Selection Criteria: We planned to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that directly compared SCS with other interventions with regards to the effectiveness of pain management. We also planned to include cross-over trials that compared SCS with another treatment. We planned to identify non-randomised controlled trials but these would only be included if no RCTs could be found., Data Collection and Analysis: The literature search for the update of this review found 121 potentially eligible articles. The initial search strategy yielded 430 articles. By scrutinising titles and abstracts, we found 412 articles irrelevant to the analytical purpose of this systematic review due to different scopes of diseases or different methods of intervention (intrathecal infusion system; oral medication) or aims other than pain control (spinal cord function monitoring, bladder function restoration or amelioration of organ metabolism). The remaining 18 trials were reviewed as full manuscripts. No RCTs were identified. Fourteen sporadic case reports and review articles were excluded and four before-and-after case series studies (92 participants) were included. Two review authors independently selected the studies to be included in the review according to the prespecified eligibility criteria. A checklist for methodological quality of non-randomised controlled trials was used (STROBE checklist) and all review authors discussed and agreed on the inclusion of trials and the results of the quality assessment., Main Results: No new studies were identified for inclusion in this update of the review. Four before-and-after case series studies (a total of 92 participants) met our criteria for inclusion in the previous version of the review. All included trials adopted a visual analogue scale (VAS) to evaluate pain relief. Heterogeneity existed in terms of baseline characteristics, electrode and stimulator parameters, level of implantation and route of implantation; each trial reported data differently. In two trials, pain relief was achieved in 76% (48/63) of participants at the end of the follow-up period. In the third trial, pre-procedure VAS was 6 to 9 (mean 7.43 ); the one-month post-implant VAS was 2 to 4 (mean 3.07); the 12-month post-implant VAS was 1 to 3 (mean 2.67). In the fourth trial, the pre-procedure VAS was 6 to 9 (mean 7.07); 1 to 4 (mean 2.67) at one-month; 1 to 4 (mean 1.87) at 12 months. Analgesic use was largely reduced. The main adverse events were infection of sites of implantation, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leakage, pain at the sites of electrodes, dislodgement of the electrodes, and system failure; however, the incidence in participants with cancer could not be calculated. Since all trials were small, non-randomised controlled trials, they carried high or unclear risk of all types of bias., Authors' Conclusions: Since the first publication of this review, no new studies were identified. Current evidence is insufficient to establish the role of SCS in treating refractory cancer-related pain. Future randomised studies should focus on the implantation of SCS in participants with cancer-related pain.

Background: Many patients with cancer experience moderate to severe pain that requires treatment with strong opioids, of which oxycodone and morphine are examples. Strong opioids are, however, not effective for pain in all patients, nor are they well-tolerated by all patients. The aim of this review was to assess whether oxycodone is associated with better pain relief and tolerability than other analgesic options for patients with cancer pain., Objectives: To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of oxycodone for pain in adults with cancer., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and MEDLINE In-Process (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), Science Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science (ISI Web of Science), BIOSIS (ISI), PsycINFO (Ovid) and PubMed to March 2014. We also searched Clinicaltrials.gov, metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT), EU Clinical Trials Register and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We checked the bibliographic references of relevant identified studies and contacted the authors of the included studies to find additional trials not identified by the electronic searches. No language, date or publication status restrictions were applied to the search., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (parallel-group or cross-over) comparing oxycodone (any formulation or route of administration) with placebo or an active drug (including oxycodone) for cancer background pain in adults., Data Collection and Analysis: Two authors independently extracted study data (study design, participant details, interventions and outcomes) and independently assessed the quality of the included studies according to standard Cochrane methodology. Where possible, we meta-analysed the pain intensity data using the generic inverse variance method, otherwise these data were summarised narratively along with the adverse event and patient preference data. The overall quality of the evidence for each outcome was assessed according to the GRADE approach., Main Results: We included 17 studies which enrolled/randomised 1390 patients with 1110 of these analysed for efficacy and 1170 for safety. The studies examined a number of different drug comparisons. Four studies compared controlled release (CR) oxycodone to immediate release (IR) oxycodone and pooled analysis of three of these studies showed that the effects of CR and IR oxycodone on pain intensity after treatment were similar (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.1, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.06 to 0.26; low quality evidence). This was in line with the finding that none of the included studies reported differences in pain intensity between the treatment groups. Three of the four studies also found similar results for treatment acceptability and adverse events in the IR and CR groups; but one study reported that, compared to IR oxycodone, CR oxycodone was associated with significantly fewer adverse events.Six studies compared CR oxycodone to CR morphine and pooled analysis of five of these studies indicated that pain intensity did not differ significantly between the treatments (SMD 0.14, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.32; low quality evidence). There were no marked differences in adverse event rates, treatment acceptability or quality of life ratings.The remaining seven studies either compared oxycodone in various formulations or compared oxycodone to different alternative opioids. None of them found any clear superiority or inferiority of oxycodone for cancer pain, neither as an analgesic agent nor in terms of adverse event rates and treatment acceptability.The quality of this evidence base was limited by the risk of bias of the studies and by small sample sizes for many outcomes. Random sequence generation and allocation concealment were under-reported, and the results were substantially compromised by attrition with data missing from more than 20% of the enrolled/randomised patients for efficacy and from more than 15% for safety., Authors' Conclusions: Overall, the data included within this review suggest that oxycodone offers similar levels of pain relief and adverse events to other strong opioids including morphine, which is commonly considered the gold standard strong opioid. Our conclusions are consistent with other recent reviews and suggest that while the reliability of the evidence base is low, given the absence of important differences within this analysis it seems unlikely that larger head to head studies of oxycodone versus morphine will be justified. This means that for clinical purposes oxycodone or morphine can be used as first line oral opioids for relief of cancer pain.

Objective: To evaluate smartphone apps intended for self-management of pain using quality assessment criteria and usability testing with prospective users., Design: 1) Survey and content analysis of available apps; and 2) individual usability study of two apps., Setting: University of Leeds, United Kingdom., Participants: Forty-one participants (aged 19-59 years) with experience of chronic or recurrent pain episodes., Methods: We undertook a survey, content analysis, and quality appraisal of all currently available mobile phone apps for self-management of pain. Two apps were then selected and assessed with usability testing., Results: Twelve apps met the inclusion criteria. The quality assessment revealed wide variation in their clinical content, interface design, and usability to support self-management of pain. Very little user or clinician involvement was identified in the development of the apps. From the usability testing, participants stated a preference for an interface design employing a lighter color scheme and particular text font. Although very few participants were aware of pain-reporting apps prior to participation, many would consider use in the future., Conclusions: Variation in app quality and a lack of user and clinician engagement in development were found across the pain apps in this research. Usability testing identified a range of user preferences. Although useful information was obtained, it would be beneficial to involve users earlier in the process of development, as well as establishing ways to merge end user requirements with evidence-based content, to provide high-quality and usable apps for self-management of pain., (Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Neuropathic pain affects 6-8% of the general adult population. It is reported by 27% of chronic pain patients and 40% of cancer patients, yet there is no standardized diagnostic test for neuropathic pain. A number of screening tools have been developed based on verbal pain descriptors, with or without limited clinical examination, to identify individuals with neuropathic pain. Over the past decade these neuropathic pain screening tools have been validated in a wide range of pain populations, as well as translated into many languages, to discriminate between neuropathic and non-neuropathic pain. We describe here the five most commonly used neuropathic pain screening tools and discuss current assessment guidelines, the use of screening tools in novel clinical contexts and their potential use in personalized therapy.

Background: Cancer-related pain places a heavy burden on public health with related high expenditure. Severe pain is associated with a decreased quality of life in patients with cancer. A significant proportion of patients with cancer-related pain are under-treated.There is a need for more effective control of cancer-related pain. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) may have a role in pain management. The effectiveness and safety of SCS for patients with cancer-related pain is currently unknown., Objectives: This systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of SCS for cancer-related pain compared with standard care using conventional analgesic medication. We also appraised risk and potential adverse events associated with the use of SCS., Search Methods: We searched the following bibliographic databases in order to identify relevant studies: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Libary (from inception to 2012, Issue 6); MEDLINE; EMBASE; and CBM (Chinese Biomedical Database) (from inception to July, 2012). We also handsearched relevant journals., Selection Criteria: We planned to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that directly compared SCS with other interventions with regards to the effectiveness of pain management. We also planned to include cross-over trials that compared SCS with another treatment. We planned to identify non-randomised controlled trials but these would only be included if no RCTs could be found., Data Collection and Analysis: The initial search strategy yielded 430 articles. By scrutinising titles and abstracts, we found 412 articles irrelevant to the analytical purpose of this systematic review due to different scopes of diseases or different methods of intervention (intrathecal infusion system; oral medication) or aims other than pain control (spinal cord function monitoring, bladder function restoration or amelioration of organ metabolism). The remaining 18 trials were reviewed as full manuscripts. No RCTs were identified. Fourteen sporadic case reports and review articles were excluded and four before-and-after case series studies (92 participants) were included. Two review authors independently selected the studies to be included in the review according to the pre-specified eligibility criteria. A checklist for methodological quality of non-randomised controlled trials was used (STROBE checklist) and all review authors discussed and agreed on the inclusion of trials and the results of the quality assessment., Main Results: Four before-and-after case series studies (a total of 92 participants) met our criteria for inclusion. All included trials adopted a visual analogue scale (VAS) to evaluate pain relief. Heterogeneity existed in terms of baseline characteristics, electrode and stimulator parameters, level of implantation and route of implantation; data reporting was different among all trials. In two trials, pain relief was achieved in 76% (48/63) of patients at the end of the follow-up period. In the third trial, pre-procedure VAS was 6 to 9 (mean 7.43 ); the one-month post-implant VAS was 2 to 4 (mean 3.07); the 12-month post-implant VAS was 1 to 3 (mean 2.67). In the fourth trial, the pre-procedure VAS was 6 to 9 (mean 7.07); 1 to 4 (mean 2.67) at one-month; 1 to 4 (mean 1.87) at 12 months. Analgesic use was largely reduced. The main adverse events were infection of sites of implantation, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leakage, pain at the sites of electrodes, dislodgement of the electrodes and system failure, however, the incidence in patients with cancer could not be calculated. Since all trials were non-randomised controlled trials, they carried risk of all types of bias., Authors' Conclusions: Current evidence is insufficient to establish the role of SCS in treating refractory cancer-related pain. Future randomised studies should focus on the implantation of SCS in patients with cancer-related pain.

The objective of this study was to investigate perceptions of how information technology (IT) is currently utilised in the UK in the community management of cancer pain, perceived weaknesses in the current systems and expectations of future IT systems. Healthcare professionals and patient representatives (n = 46) attended two meetings that explored perceptions of current and future provision of managing cancer pain in the community and the potential role of informatics in supporting this. Discussion was captured and analysed using qualitative methods. Analysis revealed that complexities and barriers to the routine capture of data on pain and related distress focused on locations of care, circles of support, and management and sharing of data. In addition, analysis revealed IT was perceived to be peripheral to supporting delivery and organisation. Delegates shared a vision for an IT system that enabled patients to access healthcare provision by effective co-ordination and communication of patient-centred information. Gaps exist between the expectations of users and the ability of current IT systems to support care. While recognising the potential of tele-health solutions, supporting the complexity of multi-agency care delivery in rapidly evolving clinical circumstances was seen as the main challenge. There is, therefore, a need to position IT more flexibly within the delivery model of clinical care if technology is to address current limitations and enhance the community management of cancer pain.

Context: Opioid therapy is central to the management of pain in the field of generalist palliative and end-of-life care, and international guidelines highlight the need for opioids to be used as part of a comprehensive strategy to treat pain. However, evidence suggests that the use of opioids in palliative care is suboptimal, and many patients do not receive adequate pain control at the end of life., Objectives: This study aimed to explore the attitudes of health care professionals to opioid prescribing in generalist end-of-life care., Methods: Thirty-one health and allied health professionals participated in four focus groups. Two focus groups took place in general practitioner practices and two in hospices., Results: Findings revealed that significant barriers exist to the appropriate use of opioids in end-of-life care. Particular barriers exist for professionals working in primary care and include concerns about giving high doses and having insufficient training in opioid use. Working partnerships between specialist and generalist palliative care providers are important for increasing generalist confidence in prescribing. Patients and their families often have concerns about initiating opioids, and specialist nursing staff are crucial to managing and alleviating these concerns., Conclusion: Significant barriers exist to the appropriate use of opioids in end-of-life care. If international priorities on improving pain management at the end of life are to be achieved, educational opportunities for generalists need to be enhanced, and effective interprofessional working models need to be developed so that pain management for patients at the end of life is optimized., (Copyright © 2012 U.S. Cancer Pain Relief Committee. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Cancer-related pain is complex and multi-dimensional but the mainstay of cancer pain management has predominantly used a biomedical approach. There is a need for non-pharmacological and innovative approaches. Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation (TENS) may have a role in pain management but the effectiveness of TENS is currently unknown. This is an update of the original review published in Issue 3, 2008., Objectives: The aim of this systematic review was to determine the effectiveness of TENS for cancer-related pain in adults., Search Methods: The initial review searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, AMED and PEDRO databases in April 2008. We performed an updated search of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PEDRO databases in November 2011., Selection Criteria: We included only randomised controlled trials (RCTS) investigating the use of TENS for the management of cancer-related pain in adults., Data Collection and Analysis: The search strategy identified a further two studies for possible inclusion. One of the review authors screened each abstract using a study eligibility tool. Where eligibility could not be determined, a second author assessed the full paper. One author used a standardised data extraction sheet to collect information on the studies and independently assess the quality of the studies using the validated five-point Oxford Quality Scale. The small sample sizes and differences in patient study populations of the three included studies (two from the original review and a third included in this update) prevented meta-analysis. For the original review the search strategy identified 37 possible published studies; we divided these between two pairs of review authors who decided on study selection; all four review authors discussed and agreed final scores., Main Results: Only one additional RCT met the eligibility criteria (24 participants) for this updated review. Although this was a feasibility study, not designed to investigate intervention effect, it suggested that TENS may improve bone pain on movement in a cancer population. The initial review identified two RCTs (64 participants) therefore this review now includes a total of three RCTs (88 participants). These studies were heterogenous with respect to study population, sample size, study design, methodological quality, mode of TENS, treatment duration, method of administration and outcome measures used. In one RCT, there were no significant differences between TENS and placebo in women with chronic pain secondary to breast cancer treatment. In the other RCT, there were no significant differences between acupuncture-type TENS and sham in palliative care patients; this study was underpowered., Authors' Conclusions: Despite the one additional RCT, the results of this updated systematic review remain inconclusive due to a lack of suitable RCTs. Large multi-centre RCTs are required to assess the value of TENS in the management of cancer-related pain in adults.

The aim of this study was to determine by consensus the components of an opioid essential prescription package (OEPP) to be used when initiating a prescription for the control of moderate to severe chronic pain. Palliative care physicians (n=60) were sampled from the International Association for Hospice and Palliative Care (IAHPC) membership list to represent a range of countries of varying economic levels and diverse geographical regions. Using a Delphi study method, physicians were asked to rank preferences of drug and dosing schedule for first-line opioid, antiemetic, and laxative for the treatment of adults with chronic pain due to cancer and other life-threatening conditions. Overall response rates after two Delphi survey rounds were 95% (n=57) and 82% (n=49), respectively. A consensus (set at ≥75% agreement) was reached to include morphine as first-line opioid at a dose of 5 mg orally every 4 hours. Consensus was reached to include metoclopramide as a first-line antiemetic, but there was no consensus on "regular" or "as needed" administration. No consensus was reached regarding a first-line laxative, but a combination of senna and docusate secured 59% agreement. There was consensus (93% agreement) that laxatives should always be given regularly when opioid treatment is started. Further work is needed to establish a recommended dose of metoclopramide and a type and dose of laxative. The resulting OEPP is international in scope and is designed to ensure that opioids are better tolerated by reducing adverse effects of opioids, which could lead to more sustained improvements in pain management.

The benefits of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for pain relief have not been reliably established, as most systematic reviews find poor methodological quality in many studies. The paradox within the evidence base for TENS is that despite identified sources of bias that may lead to an overestimation of treatment effects, no benefits for TENS can be clearly demonstrated. Conventional assessments of quality assume a single direction of bias, and little work has been undertaken examining other directions of bias. Our hypothesis was that low fidelity in studies (bias leading to an underestimation of treatment effects) may account for inconclusive findings. We included 38 studies from 3 recently published Cochrane systematic reviews that examined TENS for acute, chronic, and cancer pain. We extracted data relating to treatment allocation, application of TENS and to the assessment of outcomes. We quantified these data and judged this against standardised assessment criteria using a "traffic light" approach based on the number of studies reaching the standard. We identified significant sources of potential bias in both directions in relation to study design and implementation fidelity that have not been quantified previously. Suboptimal dosing of TENS and inappropriate outcome assessment were particularly prevalent weaknesses indicating low fidelity. We propose criteria for judging directions of bias in future studies of TENS that may be adapted to assess other trials in which implementation fidelity is important, such as other nonpharmacological interventions for pain. Poor implementation fidelity was identified as a significant source of bias in systematic reviews of TENS studies and might explain lack of consistent treatment effects of TENS in pain. Here, criteria for assessing methodology are proposed for use in designing future clinical trials of TENS., (Copyright © 2010 International Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: This discussion document about the management of cancer pain is written from the pain specialists' perspective in order to provoke thought and interest in a multimodal approach to the management of cancer pain, not just towards the end of life, but pain at diagnosis, as a consequence of cancer therapies, and in cancer survivors. It relates the science of pain to the clinical setting and explains the role of psychological, physical, interventional and complementary therapies in cancer pain., Methods: This document has been produced by a consensus group of relevant healthcare professionals in the United Kingdom and patients' representatives making reference to the current body of evidence relating to cancer pain. In the second of two parts, physical, invasive and complementary cancer pain therapies; treatment in the community; acute, treatment-related and complex cancer pain are considered., Conclusions: It is recognized that the World Health Organization (WHO) analgesic ladder, whilst providing relief of cancer pain towards the end of life for many sufferers world-wide, may have limitations in the context of longer survival and increasing disease complexity. To complement this, it is suggested that a more comprehensive model of managing cancer pain is needed that is mechanism-based and multimodal, using combination therapies including interventions where appropriate, tailored to the needs of an individual, with the aim to optimize pain relief with minimization of adverse effects.

This review aimed to quantify the benefit of patient-based educational interventions in the management of cancer pain. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of experimentally randomised and non-randomised controlled clinical trials identified from six databases from inception to November 2007.Two reviewers independently selected trials comparing intervention (formal instruction on cancer pain and analgesia on an individual basis using any medium) to usual care or other control in adults with cancer pain. Methodological quality was assessed, and data extraction undertaken by one reviewer with a second reviewer checking for accuracy. We used random effects model to combine the effect estimates from studies. Main outcome measures were effects on knowledge and attitudes towards cancer pain and analgesia, and pain intensity. Twenty-one trials (19 randomised) totalling 3501 patients met inclusion criteria, and 15 were included in the meta-analysis. Compared to usual care or control, educational interventions improved knowledge and attitudes by half a point on 0-5 rating scale (weighted mean difference 0.52, 95% confidence interval 0.04-1.0), reduced average pain intensity by over one point on 0-10 rating scale (WMD -1.1, -1.8 to -0.41) and reduced worst pain intensity by just under one point (WMD -0.78, -1.21 to -0.35). We found equivocal evidence for the effect of education on self-efficacy, but no significant benefit on medication adherence or on reducing interference with daily activities. Patient-based educational interventions can result in modest but significant benefits in the management of cancer pain, and are probably underused alongside more traditional analgesic approaches.

Pain is a common symptom that patients describe and clinicians have to manage. Management plans are tailored to the complexity of the pain. This may require a multi-modal approach while involving the wider multidisciplinary team.

In the cancer population, painful bony metastases are common, difficult to treat and significantly reduce quality of life. Common treatments include opioid analgesics, bisphosphonates, and radiotherapy; yet these have significant side effects and are not universally effective. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is inexpensive, relatively free from side effects, and widely available. We present a case study of successful TENS therapy in a patient with cancer bone pain and discuss the rationale for using TENS in this setting.

Background: Cancer-related pain is complex and multi-dimensional but the mainstay of cancer pain management has predominately used a biomedical approach. There is a need for non-pharmacological and innovative approaches. Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation (TENS) may have a role for a significant number of patients but the effectiveness of TENS is currently unknown., Objectives: The aim of this systematic review was to determine the effectiveness of TENS for cancer-related pain in adults., Search Strategy: We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, AMED and PEDRO databases (11/04/08)., Selection Criteria: Only randomised controlled trials (RCTS) investigating the use of TENS for the management of cancer-related pain in adults were included., Data Collection and Analysis: The search strategy identified 37 possible published studies which were divided between two pairs of review authors that decided on study selection. A study eligibility form was used to screen each abstract and where study eligibility could not be determined from the abstract, the full paper was obtained and assessed by one pair of review authors. A standardised data extraction sheet was used to collect information on the studies and the quality of the studies was assessed independently by two review authors using the validated five-point Oxford Quality Scale. Final scores were discussed and agreed between all four review authors. The small sample sizes and differences in patient study populations of the two included studies prevented meta-analysis., Main Results: Only two RCTs met the eligibility criteria (64 participants). These studies were heterogenous with respect to study population, sample size, study design, methodological quality, mode of TENS, treatment duration, method of administration and outcome measures used. In one RCT, there were no significant differences between TENS and placebo in women with chronic pain secondary to breast cancer treatment. In the other RCT, there were no significant differences between acupuncture-type TENS and sham in palliative care patients; this study was underpowered., Authors' Conclusions: The results of this systematic review are inconclusive due to a lack of suitable RCTs. Large multi-centre RCTs are required to assess the value of TENS in the management of cancer-related pain in adults.

Cancer pain remains a significant problem worldwide. It is often undertreated and presents in about half of cancer patients. Although several guidelines and pharmacological interventions for cancer pain management (CPM) exist, inadequate assessment and undertreatment of cancer pain are well-documented globally, especially in developing countries, including Libya. Perceptions, cultural and religious beliefs of healthcare professionals (HCP), patients, and caregivers about cancer pain and opioids are reported as barriers to CPM globally. This qualitative descriptive study aimed to explore Libyan HCPs', patients', and caregivers' views and religious beliefs about CPM and involved semi-structured interviews with 36 participants: 18 Libyan cancer patients, 6 caregivers, and 12 Libyan HCPs. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. Patients, caregivers, and newly qualified HCPs were concerned about poor tolerance and drug addiction. HCPs perceived a lack of policies and guidelines, pain rating scales, and professional education and training as CPM barriers. Some patients were unable to pay for medicines if they faced financial difficulties. Instead, patients and caregivers emphasised religious and cultural beliefs for managing cancer pain, including the use of the Qur'an and cautery. Our results suggest that religious and cultural beliefs, lack of knowledge and training in CPM among HCPs, and economic and Libyan healthcare system-related factors negatively affect CPM in Libya. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The objective of this review is to investigate the use of the subcutaneous route of administration of analgesics, common practice within palliative medicine. Design: Systematic review using consensus approach, direct comparison of subcutaneous route with intravenous and intramuscular routes. Results: The limited available evidence demonstrates non-inferiority of the subcutaneous route in both cancer patients and those post-surgery. Pain management is comparable to other routes. Route-related side effects are rare and systemic side effects are comparable. Conclusion: Pain management is a critical role of palliative medicine. The subcutaneous route of administration offers a viable option for the delivery of parenteral analgesia within all settings, including the community. This review supports current practice, demonstrating equivalence with more invasive routes of administration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Insufficient evidence exists to support or refute use of NSAIDs for managing cancer pain. Palliative physicians support a placebo-controlled trial of NSAIDs as strong opioid adjuncts for cancer-induced bone pain as the most pragmatic design to benefit clinical practice. Aim: We aimed to determine patient numbers receiving palliative radiotherapy for cancer-induced bone pain, estimate the suitability of NSAID prescription and determine survival, guiding future trial feasibility. Design: A retrospective observational database analysis was undertaken using 5 years of routinely collected regional radiotherapy and healthcare data, filtered to achieve a cohort with cancer-induced bone pain. Demographics and survival were linked to available serology and co-morbidity data. Setting/participants: Data was sourced from the regional Leeds Cancer Centre, a tertiary care setting. Patients who underwent palliative single fraction 8 gray (Gy) radiotherapy treatment for cancer-induced bone pain were included, totalling 2411 over 5 years. Results: A mean of 478 patients received palliative radiotherapy for cancer-induced bone pain annually. Median age (IQR) was 70 (62–77); negatively skewed (−0.69). 65.3% died within 1 year of radiotherapy; 48.0% within 6 months. Age was not associated with survival on univariable analysis (HR 0.999 (95% CI 0.996–1.003)). Serology from 1063 patients (44.2%) were available; eGFR was ⩾60 mL/min/1.73 m2 in 83.0%. From available data (1352 pts; 51.6% of sample), 20.2% had a coded co-morbidity contra-indicating NSAIDs. Combining serology and co-morbidities, 68.5% could be considered for NSAID prescription. Conclusions: Patient numbers at a regional radiotherapy centre support the feasibility of trial recruitment. Available serology and co-morbidity data suggest two-thirds may be suitable for NSAID prescription. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Pain, breathlessness and fatigue are some of the most challenging symptoms to manage in patients with advanced disease. Specialist palliative care leads to better symptom management, but factors contributing to successful symptom management in this context have not been explored. Our aim was to understand what facilitates effective symptom management in specialist palliative care within UK hospices and investigate what barriers are experienced. Methods: This was a grounded theory study using qualitative semi-structured focus groups and interviews. Participants were recruited from multidisciplinary specialist palliative care teams (doctors, nurses, healthcare assistants, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, complementary therapists, social workers and chaplains) working in inpatient, outpatient and community services provided by five hospices in the United Kingdom. Results: We present a novel qualitative data-derived model of effective symptom management in specialist palliative care. We describe a co-ordinated, multi-faceted, sequential approach involving a process of engagement, partnership, decision-making, and delivery. Interventions to manage symptoms are less effective in psychologically distressed patients. Our data highlights that families of patients have a key role in determining effectiveness of symptom management interventions A holistic approach by a co-ordinated, multi-disciplinary team, including support to recognise and minimise psychological distress might facilitate more effective symptom management. Barriers to symptom management include team discordance and lack of understanding about symptom management by patient and families. Conclusions: Shared decision-making between patients and professionals and co-ordination of care by a multi-disciplinary team are key components of effective symptom management. Actions to address psychological distress and evaluate the understanding and expectations of patients and their families would enable more effective symptom management. A more effective multi-disciplinary approach would be facilitated by discussion within teams about role competencies and boundaries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In cancer care, there are emerging information and communication technology systems being developed, enabling real-time information sharing between patients and health professionals. This study explored health professionals' and patients' perceptions of their engagement with an information and communication technology system for pain management to understand the mechanisms that could support implementation into routine palliative care practice. This was a qualitative study, embedded within a randomised control trial, using semi-structured face-to-face interviews. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. The role of health professionals was a key component to patient engagement with the information and communication technology system. Where patients engaged with the information and communication technology system, both patients and health professionals reported benefits to system use in addition to usual care. Implementation issues were identified that can be used to guide future system development to support pain management in the context of routine clinical care in palliative care services. Where interventions are dependent on multiple providers, collaborative working and consideration of the context within which they are set are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Pain of a moderate or severe intensity affects over half of patients with advanced cancer and remains undertreated in at least one-third of these patients. Aim: The aim of this study was to provide a pragmatic overview of the evidence supporting the use of interventions in pain management in advanced cancer and to identify where encouraging preliminary results are demonstrated but further research is required. Design: A scoping review approach was used to examine the evidence supporting the use of guideline-recommended interventions in pain management practice. Data sources: National or international guidelines were selected if they described pain management in adult cancer patients and were written within the last 5 years in English. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (January 2014 to January 2019) was searched for 'cancer' AND 'pain' in the title, abstract or keywords. A MEDLINE search was also made. Results: A strong opioid remains the drug of choice for treating moderate or severe pain. Bisphosphonates and radiotherapy are also effective for cancer-related bone pain. Optimal management requires a tailored approach, support for self-management and review of treatment outcomes. There is likely a role for non-pharmacological approaches. Paracetamol should not be used in patients taking a strong opioid to treat pain. Cannabis-based medicines are not recommended. Weak opioids, ketamine and lidocaine are indicated in specific situations only. Conclusion: Interventions commonly recommended by guidelines are not always supported by a robust evidence base. Research is required to evaluate the efficacy of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, anti-convulsants, anti-depressants, corticosteroids, some invasive anaesthetic techniques, complementary therapies and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Worldwide, the prevalence of cancer is rising and so too is the number of patients who survive their cancer for many years thanks to the therapeutic successes of modern oncology. One of the most frequent and disabling symptoms of cancer is pain. In addition to the pain caused by the cancer, cancer treatment may also lead to chronic pain. Despite its importance, chronic cancer-related pain is not represented in the current International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10). This article describes the new classification of chronic cancer-related pain for ICD-11. Chronic cancer-related pain is defined as chronic pain caused by the primary cancer itself or metastases (chronic cancer pain) or its treatment (chronic postcancer treatment pain). It should be distinguished from pain caused by comorbid disease. Pain management regimens for terminally ill cancer patients have been elaborated by the World Health Organization and other international bodies. An important clinical challenge is the longer term pain management in cancer patients and cancer survivors, where chronic pain from cancer, its treatment, and unrelated causes may be concurrent. This article describes how a new classification of chronic cancer-related pain in ICD-11 is intended to help develop more individualized management plans for these patients and to stimulate research into these pain syndromes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The UK National Health Service is striving to improve access to palliative care for patients with advanced cancer however limited information exists on the level of palliative care support currently provided in the UK. We aimed to establish the duration and intensity of palliative care received by patients with advanced cancer and identify which cancer patients are missing out. Methods: Retrospective cancer registry, primary care and secondary care data were obtained and linked for 2474 patients who died of cancer between 2010 and 2012 within a large metropolitan UK city. Associations between the type, duration, and amount of palliative care by demographic characteristics, cancer type, and therapies received were assessed using Chi-squared, Mann-Whitney or Kruskal-Wallis tests. Multinomial multivariate logistic regression was used to assess the odds of receiving community and/or hospital palliative care compared to no palliative care by demographic characteristics, cancer type, and therapies received. Results: Overall 64.6% of patients received palliative care. The average palliative care input was two contacts over six weeks. Community palliative care was associated with more palliative care events (p<0.001) for a longer duration (p<0.001). Patients were less likely to receive palliative care if they were: male (p = 0.002), aged 80 years or over (p<0.05), diagnosed with lung cancer (p<0.05), had not received an opioid prescription (p<0.001), or had not received chemotherapy (p<0.001). Patients given radiotherapy were more likely to receive community only palliative care compared to no palliative care (Odds Ratio = 1.49, 95% Confidence Interval = 1.16–1.90). Conclusion: Timely supportive care for cancer patients is advocated but these results suggest that older patients and those who do not receive anti-cancer treatment or opioid analgesics miss out. These patients should be targeted for assessment to identify unmet needs which could benefit from palliative care input. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Carers of people with advanced cancer play a significant role in managing pain medication, yet they report insufficient information and support to do so confidently and competently. There is limited research evidence on the best ways for clinicians to help carers with medication management. Aims: To develop a pain medicines management intervention (Cancer Carers Medicines Management) for cancer patients' carers near the end of life and evaluate feasibility and acceptability to nurses and carers. To test the feasibility of trial research procedures and to inform decisions concerning a full-scale randomised controlled trial. Design: Phase I-II clinical trial. A systematic, evidence-informed participatory method was used to develop CCMM: a nurse-delivered structured conversational process. A two-arm, cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial of Cancer Carers Medicines Management was conducted, with an embedded qualitative study to evaluate participants' experiences of Cancer Carers Medicines Management and trial procedures. Setting: Community settings in two study sites. Participants: Phase I comprises 57 carers, patients and healthcare professionals and Phase II comprises 12 nurses and 15 carers. Results: A novel intervention was developed. Nurses were recruited and randomised. Carer recruitment to the trial was problematic with fewer than predicted eligible participants, and nurses judged a high proportion unsuitable to recruit into the study. Attrition rates following recruitment were typical for the study population. Cancer Carers Medicines Management was acceptable to carers and nurses who took part, and some benefits were identified. Conclusion: Cancer Carers Medicines Management is a robustly developed medicines management intervention which merits further research to test its effectiveness to improve carers' management of pain medicines with patients at the end of life. The study highlighted aspects of trial design that need to be considered in future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Combining antidepressant or antiepileptic drugs with opioids has resulted in increased pain relief when used for neuropathic pain in non-cancer conditions. However, evidence to support their effectiveness in cancer pain is lacking. Aim: To determine if there is additional benefit when opioids are combined with antidepressant or antiepileptic drugs for cancer pain. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Randomised control trials comparing opioid analgesia in combination with antidepressant or antiepileptic drugs versus opioid monotherapy were sought. Data on pain and adverse events were extracted. Data were pooled using DerSimonian--Laird random-effects meta-analyses, and heterogeneity was assessed. Results: Seven randomised controlled trials that randomised 605 patients were included in the review. Patients' pain was described as neuropathic cancer pain, cancer bone pain and non-specific cancer pain. Four randomised controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis in which opioid in combination with either gabapentin or pregabalin was compared with opioid monotherapy. The pooled standardised mean difference was 0.16 (95% confidence interval, -0.19, 0.51) showing no significant difference in pain relief between the groups. Adverse events were more frequent in the combination arms. Data on amitriptyline, fluvoxamine and phenytoin were inconclusive. Conclusion: Combining opioid analgesia with gabapentinoids did not significantly improve pain relief in patients with tumour-related cancer pain compared with opioid monotherapy. Due to the heterogeneity of patient samples, benefit in patients with definite neuropathic cancer pain cannot be excluded. Clinicians should balance the small likelihood of benefit in patients with tumour-related cancer pain against the increased risk of adverse effects of combination therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Neuropathic pain (NP) in cancer patients lacks standards for diagnosis. This study is aimed at reaching consensus on the application of the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) special interest group for neuropathic pain (NeuPSIG) criteria to the diagnosis of NP in cancer patients and on the relevance of patient-reported outcome (PRO) descriptors for the screening of NP in this population. An international group of 42 experts was invited to participate in a consensus process through a modified 2-round Internet-based Delphi survey. Relevant topics investigated were: peculiarities of NP in patients with cancer, IASP NeuPSIG diagnostic criteria adaptation and assessment, and standardized PRO assessment for NP screening. Median consensus scores (MED) and interquartile ranges (IQR) were calculated to measure expert consensus after both rounds. Twenty-nine experts answered, and good agreement was found on the statement “the pathophysiology of NP due to cancer can be different from non-cancer NP” (MED = 9, IQR = 2). Satisfactory consensus was reached for the first 3 NeuPSIG criteria (pain distribution, history, and sensory findings; MEDs ⩾ 8, IQRs ⩽ 3), but not for the fourth one (diagnostic test/imaging; MED = 6, IQR = 3). Agreement was also reached on clinical examination by soft brush or pin stimulation (MEDs ⩾ 7 and IQRs ⩽ 3) and on the use of PRO descriptors for NP screening (MED = 8, IQR = 3). Based on the study results, a clinical algorithm for NP diagnostic criteria in cancer patients with pain was proposed. Clinical research on PRO in the screening phase and on the application of the algorithm will be needed to examine their effectiveness in classifying NP in cancer patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a study which aimed to describe the current position of educational interventions in cancer pain management. Findings showed that barriers to good cancer pain control center on the lack of knowledge or poor attitudes towards pain and opioid analgesia. It concluded that educational interventions should be part of routine clinical practice alongside optimal oncological and analgesic management.

Objective. This discussion document about the management of cancer pain is written from the pain specialists' perspective in order to provoke thought and interest in a multimodal approach to the management of cancer pain, not just towards the end of life, but pain at diagnosis, as a consequence of cancer therapies, and in cancer survivors. It relates the science of pain to the clinical setting and explains the role of psychological, physical, interventional and complementary therapies in cancer pain. Methods. This document has been produced by a consensus group of relevant health care professionals in the United Kingdom and patients' representatives making reference to the current body of evidence relating to cancer pain. In the first of two parts, pathophysiology, oncological, pharmacological, and psychological treatment are considered. Conclusions. It is recognized that the World Health Organization (WHO) analgesic ladder, while providing relief of cancer pain towards the end of life for many sufferers worldwide, may have limitations in the context of longer survival and increasing disease complexity. To complement this, it is suggested that a more comprehensive model of managing cancer pain is needed that is mechanism-based and multimodal, using combination therapies including interventions where appropriate, tailored to the needs of an individual, with the aim to optimize pain relief with minimization of adverse effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the assessment of neuropathic pain (NP). Key features, causes and mechanisms that would guide clinicians in the assessment of NP are discussed. Spontaneous and evoked pains are said to be the common features of NP. Causes include post-herpetic neuralgia, trigeminal neuralgia and post-stroke pain.

This paper reviews the pharmacology and clinical effectiveness of gabapentin in the treatment of neuropathic pain. Gabapentin has antihyperalgesic and antiallodynic properties but does not have significant actions as an anti-nociceptive agent. Its mechanisms of action appear to be a complex synergy between increased GABA synthesis, non-NMDA receptor antagonism and binding to the α[sub 2]δ subunit of voltage dependent calcium channels. The latter action inhibits the release of excitatory neurotransmitters. Clinically, several large randomized controlled trials have demonstrated its effectiveness in the treatment of a variety of neuropathic pain syndromes. Patients with neuropathic pain can expect a mean reduction in pain score of 2.05 points on an 11 point numerical rating scale compared with a reduction of 0.94 points if they had taken the placebo. Around 30% of patients can expect to achieve more than 50% pain relief and a similar number will also experience minor adverse events; the most common of which are somnolence and dizziness. In patients with neuropathic pain due to cancer, higher response rates might be observed with gabapentin when administered with opioids because of a synergistic interaction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]