A Randomized Controlled Trial of a Non-pharmacological Intervention for Cancer-Related Dyspnea.

Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy of a brief tailored non-pharmacological intervention comprising breathing retraining and psychosocial support for managing dyspnea in cancer patients. Design: Multicenter, single blinded, parallel group, randomized controlled trial. Setting: Four major public hospitals, Brisbane, Australia. Participants: One hundred and forty four cancer patients, including 81 who received an 8-week tailored intervention and 63 who received standard care. Inclusion Criteria: Diagnosis of small or non-small cell lung cancer, mesothelioma or lung metastases; completed first line therapy for the disease; average dyspnea rating >2 on (0-10) rating scale in past week; anticipated life expectancy ≥3 months. Outcomes: The primary outcome measure was change in "worst" dyspnea at 8 weeks compared to baseline. Secondary outcomes were change in: dyspnea "at best" and "on average"; distress; perceived control over dyspnea; functional status, psychological distress; and use of non-pharmacological interventions to manage dyspnea at 8 weeks relative to baseline. Results: The mean age of participants was 67.9 (SD = 9.6) years. Compared to the control group, the intervention group demonstrated a statistically significant: (i) improvement in average dyspnea from T1(M = 4.5, SE = 0.22) to T3 (M = 3.6, SE = 0.24) vs. (M = 3.8, SE = 0.24) to (M = 4.1, SE = 0.26); (ii) greater control over dyspnea from T1 (M = 5.7, SE = 0.28) to T3 (M = 7.5, SE = 0.31) vs. (M = 6.8, SE = 0.32) to (M = 6.6, SE = 0.33); and (iii) greater reduction in anxiety from T1 (M = 5.4, SE = 0.43) to T3 (M = 4.5, SE = 0.45) vs. (M = 4.2, SE = 0.49) to (M = 4.6, SE = 0.50). This study found no intervention effect for best and worst dyspnea, distress from breathlessness, functional status, and depression over time. Conclusions: This study demonstrates efficacy of tailored non-pharmacological interventions in improving dyspnea on average, control over dyspnea, and anxiety for cancer patients. Clinical Trial Registration: The trial is registered at the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (http://www.anzctr.org.au). The registration number is ACTRN12607000087459.

Methotrimeprazine versus haloperidol in palliative care patients with cancer-related nausea: a randomised, double-blind controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: Methotrimeprazine is commonly used for the management of nausea but never tested formally against other drugs used in this setting. The aim was to demonstrate superior antiemetic efficacy. DESIGN: Double-blind, randomised, controlled trial of methotrimeprazine versus haloperidol. SETTING: 11 palliative care sites in Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were >18 years, had cancer, an average nausea score of ≥3/10 and able to tolerate oral medications. Ineligible patients had acute nausea related to treatment, nausea for which a specific antiemetic was indicated, were about to undergo a procedure or had received either of the study drugs or a change in glucocorticoid dose within the previous 48 hours. INTERVENTIONS: Based on previous studies, haloperidol was used as the control. Participants were randomised to encapsulated methotrimeprazine 6·25 mg or haloperidol 1·5 mg one time or two times per day and assessed every 24 hours for 72 hours. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A ≥two-point reduction in nausea score at 72 hours from baseline. Secondary outcome measures were as follows: complete response at 72 hours (end nausea score less than 3), response at 24 and 48 hours, vomiting episodes, use of rescue antiemetics, harms and global impression of change. RESULTS: Response to treatment at 72 hours was 75% (44/59) in the haloperidol (H) arm and 63% (36/57) in the methotrimeprazine (M) arm with no difference between groups (intention-to-treat analysis). Complete response rates were 56% (H) and 51% (M). In the per protocol analysis, there was no difference in response rates: (85% (44/52) (H) and 74% (36/49) (M). Complete per protocol response rates were 64% (H) and 59% (M). Toxicity worse than baseline was minimal with a trend towards greater sedation in the methotrimeprazine arm. CONCLUSION: This study did not demonstrate any difference in response rate between methotrimeprazine and haloperidol in the control of nausea. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN 12615000177550.

The ENHANCES study: a randomised controlled trial of a nurse-led survivorship intervention for patients treated for head and neck cancer.

PURPOSE: A randomised controlled trial was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of a nurse-delivered Head and Neck Cancer Survivor Self-Management Care Plan (HNCP) for patients who had completed treatment for head and neck cancer (HNC). METHODS: Ten oncology nurses were trained to deliver the HNCP. The HNCP consisted of one face-to-face hour-long meeting in which the patient's treatment was recorded, as were contact details of health professionals involved in their care and follow-up schedules. Patients were guided to nominate up to three goals for their future well-being and assisted to devise an action plan to achieve these. The HNCP was given to the patient and a copy was forwarded to their primary care physician. One hundred and nine patients were randomised after definitive curative intent treatment, 36 to HNCP, 36 to receive information about survivorship, and 37 to usual care. The primary outcome, analysed by intention-to-treat, was change in quality of life measured by the FACT-H&N from baseline to 6-month follow-up. RESULTS: Quality of life of all groups decreased at 3 months but was close to baseline at 6 months. Compared with the usual care group, the only statistically significant mean difference at 6 months was for the information group on the physical well-being domain (mean difference 0.4, 95% - 1.8, 2.6, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: A single-session nurse-delivered intervention is insufficient to improve the quality of life in HNC survivors compared with usual care. Provision of detailed written information about HNC survivorship is associated with improved physical well-being. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12613000542796.

A randomized open-label study of guideline-driven antiemetic therapy versus single agent antiemetic therapy in patients with advanced cancer and nausea not related to anticancer treatment.

BACKGROUND: Nausea/vomiting (N/V) not related to anti-cancer treatment is common in patients with advanced cancer. The standard approach to management is to define a dominant cause, and treat with an antiemetic selected through pathophysiologic knowledge of emetic pathways. High rates of N/V control have been reported using both etiology-based guideline-driven antiemetic regimens and an empiric approach using single agents in uncontrolled studies. These different approaches had never been formally compared. METHODS: This randomized, prospective, open label, dose-escalating study used readily available antiemetics in accordance with etiology-based guidelines or single agent therapy with haloperidol. Participants had a baseline average nausea score of ≥3/10. Response was defined as a ≥ 2/10 point reduction on a numerical rating scale of average nausea score with a final score < 3/10 at 72 h. RESULTS: Nausea scores and distress from nausea improved over time in the majority of the 185 patients randomized. For those who completed each treatment day, a greater response rate was seen in the guideline arm than the single agent arm at 24 h (49% vs 32%; p = 0.02), but not at 48 or 72 h. Response rates at 72 h in the intention to treat analysis were 49 and 53% respectively, with no significant difference between arms (0·04; 95% CI: -0·11, 0·19; p = 0·59). Over 80% of all participants reported an improved global impression of change. There were few adverse events worse than baseline in either arm. CONCLUSION: An etiology-based, guideline-directed approach to antiemetic therapy may offer more rapid benefit, but is no better than single agent treatment with haloperidol at 72 h. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ANZCTRN12610000481077 .

Latent Class Analysis Reveals Distinct Subgroups of Patients Based on Symptom Occurrence and Demographic and Clinical Characteristics.

CONTEXT: Cancer patients experience a broad range of physical and psychological symptoms as a result of their disease and its treatment. On average, these patients report 10 unrelieved and co-occurring symptoms. OBJECTIVES: The aims were to determine if subgroups of oncology outpatients receiving active treatment (n = 582) could be identified based on their distinct experience with 13 commonly occurring symptoms; to determine whether these subgroups differed on select demographic and clinical characteristics; and to determine if these subgroups differed on quality of life (QOL) outcomes. METHODS: Demographic, clinical, and symptom data from one Australian and two U.S. studies were combined. Latent class analysis was used to identify patient subgroups with distinct symptom experiences based on self-report data on symptom occurrence using the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale. RESULTS: Four distinct latent classes were identified (i.e., all low [28.0%], moderate physical and lower psych [26.3%], moderate physical and higher psych [25.4%], and all high [20.3%]). Age, gender, education, cancer diagnosis, and presence of metastatic disease differentiated among the latent classes. Patients in the all high class had the worst QOL scores. CONCLUSION: Findings from this study confirm the large amount of interindividual variability in the symptom experience of oncology patients. The identification of demographic and clinical characteristics that place patients at risk for a higher symptom burden can be used to guide more aggressive and individualized symptom management interventions.

Differences in Composition of Symptom Clusters Between Older and Younger Oncology Patients.

CONTEXT: Older oncology patients have unique needs associated with the many physical, psychological, and social changes associated with the aging process. The mechanisms underpinning and the impact of these changes are not well understood. Identification of clusters of symptoms is one approach that has been used to elicit hypotheses about the biological and/or psychological basis for variations in symptom experiences. OBJECTIVES: The purposes of this study were to identify and compare symptom clusters in younger (<60 years) and older (≥60 years) patients undergoing cancer treatment. METHODS: Symptom data from one Australian study and two U.S. studies were combined to conduct this analysis. A total of 593 patients receiving active treatment were dichotomized into younger (<60 years) and older (≥60 years) groups. Separate exploratory factor analyses (EFAs) were undertaken within each group to identify symptom clusters from occurrence ratings of the 32 symptoms assessed by the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale. RESULTS: In both groups, a seven-factor solution was selected. Four partially concordant symptom clusters emerged in both groups (i.e., mood/cognitive, malaise, body image, and genitourinary). In the older patients, the three unique clusters reflected physiological changes associated with aging, whereas in the younger group the three unique clusters reflected treatment-related effects. CONCLUSION: The symptom clusters identified in older patients typically included a larger and more diverse range of physical and psychological symptoms. Differences also may be reflective of variations in treatment approaches between age groups. Findings highlight the need for better understanding of variation in treatment and symptom burden between younger and older adults with cancer.

The ENHANCES study--Enhancing Head and Neck Cancer patients' Experiences of Survivorship: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Few cancers pose greater challenges than head and neck (H&N) cancer. Residual effects following treatment include body image changes, pain, fatigue and difficulties with appetite, swallowing and speech. Depression is a common comorbidity. There is limited evidence about ways to assist patients to achieve optimal adjustment after completion of treatment. In this study, we aim to examine the effectiveness and feasibility of a model of survivorship care to improve the quality of life of patients who have completed treatment for H&N cancer. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a preliminary study in which 120 patients will be recruited. A prospective randomised controlled trial of the H&N Cancer Survivor Self-management Care Plan (HNCP) involving pre- and post-intervention assessments will be used. Consecutive patients who have completed a defined treatment protocol for H&N cancer will be recruited from two large cancer services and randomly allocated to one of three study arms: (1) usual care, (2) information in the form of a written resource or (3) the HNCP delivered by an oncology nurse who has participated in manual-based training and skill development in patient self-management support. The trained nurses will meet patients in a face-to-face interview lasting up to 60 minutes to develop an individualised HNCP, based on principles of chronic disease self-management. Participants will be assessed at baseline, 3 and 6 months. The primary outcome measure is quality of life. The secondary outcome measures include mood, self-efficacy and health-care utilisation. The feasibility of implementing this intervention in routine clinical care will be assessed through semistructured interviews with participating nurses, managers and administrators. Interviews with patients who received the HNCP will explore their perceptions of the HNCP, including factors that assisted them in achieving behavioural change. DISCUSSION: In this study, we aim to improve the quality of life of a patient population with unique needs by means of a tailored self-management care plan developed upon completion of treatment. Delivery of the intervention by trained oncology nurses is likely to be acceptable to patients and, if successful, will be a model of care that can be implemented for diverse patient populations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12613000542796 (registered on 15 May 2013).

Differences in the symptom experience of older oncology outpatients.

CONTEXT: The relatively low number of older patients in cancer trials limits knowledge of how older adults experience symptoms associated with cancer and its treatment. OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated for differences in the symptom experience across four older age groups (60-64, 65-69, 70-74, ≥75 years). METHODS: Demographic, clinical, and symptom data from 330 patients aged >60 years who participated in one Australian and two U.S. studies were evaluated. The Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale was used to evaluate the occurrence, severity, frequency, and distress of 32 symptoms commonly associated with cancer and its treatment. RESULTS: On average, regardless of the age group, patients reported 10 concurrent symptoms. The most prevalent symptoms were physical in nature. Worrying was the most common psychological symptom. For 28 (87.5%) of the 32 Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale symptoms, no age-related differences were found in symptom occurrence rates. For symptom severity ratings, an age-related trend was found for difficulty swallowing. As age increased, severity of difficulty swallowing decreased. For symptom frequency, age-related trends were found for feeling irritable and diarrhea, with both decreasing in frequency as age increased. For symptom distress, age-related trends were found for lack of energy, shortness of breath, feeling bloated, and difficulty swallowing. As age increased, these symptoms received lower average distress ratings. CONCLUSION: Additional research is warranted to examine how age differences in symptom experience are influenced by treatment differences, aging-related changes in biological or psychological processes, or age-related response shift.

Identification of symptom clusters in patients with chronic venous leg ulcers.

CONTEXT: Patients with venous leg ulcers experience multiple symptoms, including pain, depression, and discomfort from lower leg inflammation and wound exudate. Some of these symptoms impair wound healing and decrease quality of life (QOL). The presence of co-occurring symptoms may have a negative effect on these outcomes. The identification of symptom clusters could potentially lead to improvements in symptom management and QOL. OBJECTIVES: To identify the prevalence and severity of common symptoms and the occurrence of symptom clusters in patients with venous leg ulcers. METHODS: For this secondary analysis, data on sociodemographic characteristics, medical history, venous history, ulcer and lower limb clinical characteristics, symptoms, treatments, healing, and QOL were analyzed from a sample of 318 patients with venous leg ulcers who were recruited from hospital outpatient and community nursing clinics for leg ulcers. Exploratory factor analysis was used to identify symptom clusters. RESULTS: Almost two-thirds (64%) of the patients experienced four or more concurrent symptoms. The most frequent symptoms were sleep disturbance (80%), pain (74%), and lower limb swelling (67%). Sixty percent of patients reported three or more symptoms at a moderate-to-severe level of intensity (e.g., 78% reported disturbed sleep frequently or always; the mean pain severity score was 49 of 100, SD 26.5). Exploratory factor analysis identified two symptom clusters: pain, depression, sleep disturbance, and fatigue; and swelling, inflammation, exudate, and fatigue. CONCLUSION: Two symptom clusters were identified in this sample of patients with venous leg ulcers. Further research is needed to verify these symptom clusters and to evaluate their effect on patient outcomes.

Differences in the symptom experience of older versus younger oncology outpatients: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Mortality rates for cancer are decreasing in patients under 60 and increasing in those over 60 years of age. The reasons for these differences in mortality rates remain poorly understood. One explanation may be that older patients received substandard treatment because of concerns about adverse effects. Given the paucity of research on the multiple dimensions of the symptom experience in older oncology patients, the purpose of this study was to evaluate for differences in ratings of symptom occurrence, severity, frequency, and distress between younger (< 60 years) and older ( ≥ 60 years) adults undergoing cancer treatment. We hypothesized that older patients would have significantly lower ratings on four symptom dimensions. METHODS: Data from two studies in the United States and one study in Australia were combined to conduct this analysis. All three studies used the MSAS to evaluate the occurrence, severity, frequency, and distress of 32 symptoms. RESULTS: Data from 593 oncology outpatients receiving active treatment for their cancer (i.e., 44.4% were < 60 years and 55.6% were ≥ 60 years of age) were evaluated. Of the 32 MSAS symptoms, after controlling for significant covariates, older patients reported significantly lower occurrence rates for 15 (46.9%) symptoms, lower severity ratings for 6 (18.9%) symptoms, lower frequency ratings for 4 (12.5%) symptoms, and lower distress ratings for 14 (43.8%) symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to evaluate for differences in multiple dimensions of symptom experience in older oncology patients. For almost 50% of the MSAS symptoms, older patients reported significantly lower occurrence rates. While fewer age-related differences were found in ratings of symptom severity, frequency, and distress, a similar pattern was found across all three dimensions. Future research needs to focus on a detailed evaluation of patient and clinical characteristics (i.e., type and dose of treatment) that explain the differences in symptom experience identified in this study.

Identification of cancer-related symptom clusters: an empirical comparison of exploratory factor analysis methods.

CONTEXT: Symptom clusters, important for symptom management strategies, have been determined empirically by various analytical methods. Guidance to select methods from the options available in standard statistical packages is limited. OBJECTIVES: To compare alternative common factor analysis (FA) extraction methods appropriate to the data, to assess whether or not they determine similar symptom clusters, and to propose analytical approaches that are useful in this clinical context. METHODS: Within one month of commencing chemotherapy, outpatients from oncology and hematology clinics (n = 202) reported their symptom experience on a modified Rotterdam Symptom Checklist. Symptom distress levels in the past week were rated on a scale of one (not at all) to four (very much). In a secondary data analysis of 42 symptoms, the associations between symptoms and factors were determined using alternative common FA methods: principal axis factoring, unweighted least squares, image factor analysis, and alpha factor analysis (AFA). Symptom inclusion in a cluster was based on the interpretation of pattern and structure coefficients, and importantly, clinical relevance of the grouping. RESULTS: Five symptom clusters were commonly identified across methods: musculoskeletal discomforts/lethargy, oral discomforts, upper gastrointestinal discomforts, vasomotor symptoms, and gastrointestinal toxicities. In AFA, three additional clusters were lethargy, somatic symptoms, and treatment-related symptom clusters. CONCLUSION: The most parsimonious solution resulted from principal axis factoring, but for large numbers of symptoms, AFA may be superior by identifying symptom clusters more useful for symptom management. Interpreting complex symptom relationships may lead to the investigation of pathophysiological mechanisms and intervention opportunities. Future studies should include psychological and cognitive symptoms.

Cancer-related symptom clusters for symptom management in outpatients after commencing adjuvant chemotherapy, at 6 months, and 12 months.

GOALS OF WORK: The aim of this secondary data analysis was to investigate symptom clusters over time for symptom management of a patient group after commencing adjuvant chemotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective longitudinal study of 219 cancer outpatients conducted within 1 month of commencing chemotherapy (T1), 6 months (T2), and 12 months (T3) later. Patients' distress levels were assessed for 42 physical symptoms on a clinician-modified Rotterdam Symptom Checklist. Symptom clusters were identified in exploratory factor analyses at each time. Symptom inclusion in clusters was determined from structure coefficients. Symptoms could be associated with multiple clusters. Stability over time was determined from symptom cluster composition and the proportion of symptoms in the initial symptom clusters replicated at later times. MAIN RESULTS: Fatigue and daytime sleepiness were the most prevalent distressing symptoms over time. The median number of concurrent distressing symptoms approximated 7, over time. Five consistent clusters were identified at T1, T2, and T3. An additional two clusters were identified at 12 months, possibly due to less variation in distress levels. Weakness and fatigue were each associated with two, four, and five symptom clusters at T1, T2, and T3, respectively, potentially suggesting different causal mechanisms. CONCLUSION: Stability is a necessary attribute of symptom clusters, but definitional clarification is required. We propose that a core set of concurrent symptoms identifies each symptom cluster, signifying a common cause. Additional related symptoms may be included over time. Further longitudinal investigation is required to identify symptom clusters and the underlying causes.

Multivariate methods to identify cancer-related symptom clusters.

Multivariate methods are required to assess the interrelationships among multiple, concurrent symptoms. We examined the conceptual and contextual appropriateness of commonly used multivariate methods for cancer symptom cluster identification. From 178 publications identified in an online database search of Medline, CINAHL, and PsycINFO, limited to articles published in English, 10 years prior to March 2007, 13 cross-sectional studies met the inclusion criteria. Conceptually, common factor analysis (FA) and hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) are appropriate for symptom cluster identification, not principal component analysis. As a basis for new directions in symptom management, FA methods are more appropriate than HCA. Principal axis factoring or maximum likelihood factoring, the scree plot, oblique rotation, and clinical interpretation are recommended approaches to symptom cluster identification.

Randomized controlled trial of an educational intervention for managing fatigue in women receiving adjuvant chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy of a psychoeducational intervention in improving cancer-related fatigue. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This randomized controlled trial involved 109 women commencing adjuvant chemotherapy for stage I or II breast cancer in five chemotherapy treatment centers. Intervention group patients received an individualized fatigue education and support program delivered in the clinic and by phone over three 10- to 20-minute sessions 1 week apart. Instruments included a numeric rating scale assessing confidence with managing fatigue; 11-point numeric rating scales measuring fatigue at worst, average, and best; the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Fatigue and Piper Fatigue Scales; the Cancer Self-Efficacy Scale; the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30; and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. For each outcome, separate analyses of covariance of change scores between baseline (T1) and the three follow-up time points (T2, T3, and T4) were conducted, controlling for the variable's corresponding baseline value. RESULTS: Compared with the intervention group, mean difference scores between the baseline (T1) and immediate after the test (T2) assessments increased significantly more for the control group for worst and average fatigue, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Fatigue, and Piper fatigue severity and interference measures. These differences were not observed between baseline and T3 and T4 assessments. No significant differences were identified for any pre- or post-test change scores for confidence with managing fatigue, cancer self-efficacy, anxiety, depression, or quality of life. CONCLUSION: Preparatory education and support has the potential to assist women to cope with cancer-related fatigue in the short term. However, further research is needed to identify ways to improve the potency and sustainability of psychoeducational interventions for managing cancer-related fatigue.

The use of complementary and alternative medications by menopausal women in South East Queensland.

This study aimed to identify the prevalence and types of complementary and alternative medications (CAMs) used by women during menopause and explore potential associations between CAM use and menopausal symptoms. Analysis was undertaken with 886 randomly selected menopausal women aged 47-67 years who participated in a postal questionnaire on the menopause experience. The prevalence of CAM use was relatively high (82.5%), with nutrition most commonly cited (67%), followed by phytoestrogens (56%), herbal therapies (41%), and CAM medications (25%). Multivariate analysis adjusted for confounders revealed that women who consumed CAM medications were 17-23% more likely to report anxiety (p = .019) or vasomotor symptoms (p = .013). Women who used herbal therapies (p = .009) or phytoestrogens (p = .030) were 13-16% more likely to experience vasomotor symptoms. Women who used nutrition were 18% more likely to experience anxiety (p = .049). These results highlight the importance for health professionals to incorporate CAMs into their practice to better inform menopausal women of their treatment choices.

A randomized controlled trial of a nurse-administered educational intervention for improving cancer pain management in ambulatory settings.

The persistence of negative attitudes towards cancer pain and its treatment suggests there is scope for identifying more effective pain education strategies. This randomized controlled trial involving 189 ambulatory cancer patients evaluated an educational intervention that aimed to optimize patients' ability to manage pain. One week post-intervention, patients receiving the pain management intervention (PMI) had a significantly greater increase in self-reported pain knowledge, perceived control over pain, and number of pain treatments recommended. Intervention group patients also demonstrated a greater reduction in willingness to tolerate pain, concerns about addiction and side effects, being a "good" patient, and tolerance to pain relieving medication. The results suggest that targeted educational interventions that utilize individualized instructional techniques may alter cancer patient attitudes, which can potentially act as barriers to effective pain management.

Family caregivers' experiences and involvement with cancer pain management.

The purpose of this descriptive cross-sectional study was to describe family caregiver involvement in and perceptions of cancer pain management. A consecutively recruited cohort of 75 patient-caregiver dyads attending an outpatient oncology clinic completed self-report questionnaires comprising standardized and investigator-developed measures of pain behaviours and experiences. Family caregivers reported high levels of confidence and willingness to participate in pain management, and extensive involvement in pain management activities including supporting, decision making, and communicating about pain. At the same time, many caregivers experienced a great deal of distress and some difficulties in performing these activities. The significance and scope of these caregiving experiences suggest that developing the caregiver's ability to effectively contribute to pain management is an important priority in efforts to improve cancer pain management.

Barriers to effective cancer pain management: a survey of hospitalized cancer patients in Australia.

The purpose of this study was to examine attitudinal barriers to effective pain management in a consecutively recruited cohort of 114 cancer patients from four Australian hospitals. When surveyed, 48% of this sample reported experiencing pain within the previous 24 hours. Of these, 56% reported this pain to be "distressing, horrible or excruciating," with large proportions indicating that this pain had affected their movement, sleep and emotional well-being. Three factors were identified as potentially impacting on patients' responses to pain-poor levels of patient knowledge about pain, low perceived control over pain, and a deficit in communication about pain. A trend for older patients to experience more severe pain was also identified. These older patients reported being more willing to tolerate pain and perceive less control over their pain. Suggestions are made for developing patient education programs and further research using concepts drawn from broader social and behavioral models.