Exploring patient experiences and acceptability of group vs. individual acupuncture for Cancer-related pain: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Individual acupuncture (AP) is a safe and effective treatment for cancer-related pain and other symptoms in cancer survivors. However, access to individual AP is limited, and costs can be prohibitive. Group AP could be a more cost-effective alternative as it is less expensive and non-inferior to individual AP for pain relief. Despite growing evidence in favour of group AP, patient acceptability and experience of group AP in cancer patients is relatively unknown. This exploratory study sought to compare patient experiences and acceptability of group versus individual AP in cancer patients. METHODS: Semi-structured, open-ended, in-depth interviews were conducted in a subset of 11 cancer patients enrolled in a randomized non-inferiority trial of group vs. individual AP for cancer pain. Participants for this study were recruited via purposive sampling, aiming for diversity in age, sex, education, employment, cancer types, and treatment arms. Data was analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Two major themes were identified: a) overall experience of AP treatment b) value of AP. Participants across both treatment arms acknowledged improvement in pain, quality of sleep, mood and fatigue. Participants in the group AP arm reported a significant increase in perceived social support, while participants in the individual arm valued privacy and one-on-one interaction with the acupuncturist. Although some participants in the group arm had privacy-related concerns before the commencement of the program, these concerns waned after a few AP sessions. Participants across both the treatment arms reported cordial clinician-patient relationship with the acupuncturist. Willingness to pursue AP treatment in the future was comparable across both the treatment arms and was limited by out-of-pocket costs. CONCLUSION: Patient acceptability and experience of treatment in group AP was on par with individual AP. Group AP may further augment perceived social support among patients and privacy concerns, if any, subside after a few sessions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT03641222 ). Registered 10 July 2018 - Retrospectively registered.

Cost-Utility of Group Versus Individual Acupuncture for Cancer-Related Pain Using Quality-Adjusted Life Years in a Noninferiority Trial.

Introduction: Individual acupuncture (AP) is the gold standard method of AP delivery for cancer-related pain; however, costs can be prohibitive. Group AP allows four to six patients to be treated in a single session. This study sought to examine the cost-utility of group AP compared with individual AP from a patient perspective. Materials and Methods: Effectiveness and cost data from a noninferiority randomized trial of group versus individual AP for cancer-related pain were used. In the trial, 74 patients were randomly assigned to individual or group AP treatments twice per week for 6 weeks. The EuroQol five-dimension five level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) was used to assess health-related quality of life, and the EQ-5D Utility Index was used as a composite measure constituted of five domains (mobility, self-care, usual activities, anxiety-depression, and pain-discomfort). Linear mixed models were used to compare the change in EQ-5D-5L states pre-post intervention between the two arms. A cost-utility analysis was performed in terms of the incremental costs per additional quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Results: Group AP participants experienced more significant relief in the pain-discomfort subscale of the EQ-5D-5L measure compared with individual AP participants (group × time, F = 6.18; p = 0.02). The effect size on pain-discomfort for group AP (d = 0.80) was higher than that of individual AP (d = 0.34). There were no significant differences between the two study arms for other subscales of the EQ-5D-5L over time. QALYs at 6 weeks were slightly higher for group AP (0.020) compared with individual AP (0.007) leading to an incremental QALY gained by the group arm of 0.013, but this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.07). The cost of delivering AP treatment for the group arm over 6 weeks ($201.25) was nearly half of the individual arm ($400). Conclusions: Group AP was superior to individual AP in cancer patients. These findings have implications for the use of group AP in low-resource settings and in health care systems where AP for cancer patients is not covered by public health insurance. ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03641222). Registered July 10, 2018-Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT03641222.

Group versus Individual Acupuncture (AP) for Cancer Pain: A Randomized Noninferiority Trial.

BACKGROUND: A service delivery model using group acupuncture (AP) may be more cost-effective than individual AP in general, but there is little evidence to assess whether group AP is a comparable treatment in terms of efficacy to standard individual AP. The study aimed to compare the group to individual delivery of 6-week AP among cancer patients with pain. METHODS: The study design was a randomized noninferiority trial of the individual (gold standard treatment) vs. group AP for cancer pain. The primary outcome was pain interference and severity, measured through the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI). Secondary outcomes included measures of mood, sleep, fatigue, and social support. Changes in outcomes from pre- to postintervention were examined using linear mixed effects modeling and noninferiority was inferred using a noninferiority margin, a difference of change between the two arms and 95% CIs. Pain interference was tested with a noninferiority margin of 1 on the BPI, while pain severity and secondary outcomes were compared using conventional statistical methods. RESULTS: The trial included 74 participants randomly allocated to group (35) or individual (39) AP. The noninferiority hypothesis was supported for pain interference [Ó¨ - 1, Δ 1.03, 95% CI: 0.15-2.20] and severity [Ó¨ - 0.81, Δ 0.52, 95% CI:.33-1.38] as well as for mood [Ó¨ - 7.52, Δ 9.86, 95% CI: 0.85-18.86], sleep [Ó¨ - 1.65, Δ 2.60, 95% CI: 0.33-4.88], fatigue [Ó¨ 8.54, Δ - 15.57, 95% CI: 25.60-5.54], and social support [Ó¨.26, Δ - 0.15, 95% CI: - 0.42-0.13], meaning that group AP was not inferior to individual AP treatment. Both arms evidenced statistically significant improvements across all symptoms before and after the intervention. Effect sizes for the group vs. individual AP on outcomes of pain, sleep, mood, and social support ranged from small to very large and were consistently larger in the group condition. The total average cost-per-person for group AP ($221.25) was almost half that of individual AP ($420). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to examine the noninferiority of group AP with the gold standard individual AP. Group AP was noninferior to individual AP for treating cancer pain and was superior in many health outcomes. Group AP is more cost-effective for alleviating cancer pain and should be considered for implementation trials.