Patients' peri-operative experiences with non-pharmacologic pain care techniques: a secondary qualitative analysis of the NOHARM trial.

IF 3.4 2区 医学 Q1 INTEGRATIVE & COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE
Sarah A Minteer, Christy M Audeh, Cindy Tofthagen, Kathy E Sheffield, Susanne M Cutshall, Jon C Tilburt, Andrea L Cheville
{"title":"Patients' peri-operative experiences with non-pharmacologic pain care techniques: a secondary qualitative analysis of the NOHARM trial.","authors":"Sarah A Minteer, Christy M Audeh, Cindy Tofthagen, Kathy E Sheffield, Susanne M Cutshall, Jon C Tilburt, Andrea L Cheville","doi":"10.1186/s12906-025-05141-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Peri-operative pain management guidelines recommend multimodal strategies, but education on non-pharmacological pain care (NPPC) is lacking. The present study explored patients' experiences participating in the Healing After Surgery (HAS) initiative as part of a pragmatic clinical trial, designed to provide patients with peri-operative education and support for using NPPC.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We sought to interview two patients from each of the 31 surgical practices participating in the trial. Interviews were semi-structured, audio-recorded, and transcribed verbatim. We used a rapid analytic approach to summarize interview transcripts. Summaries were uploaded to NVivo and two researchers independently reviewed queries and produced analytic memos with key themes organized according to the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability's seven constructs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We analyzed interview transcripts for 71 patients. Findings revealed that patients (1) generally liked the HAS initiative (affective attitude), (2) it aligned with patients' beliefs about wellness techniques and concerns about opioids (ethicality), and (3) many patients had experience using NPPC (self-efficacy). However, (4) care team education and provision of NPPC was inconsistent (intervention coherence), (5) patients varied on their thoughts about the effectiveness of NPPC and the role of NPPC and medication (perceived effectiveness), (6) some patients found resources repetitive and encountered logistical challenges engaging with resources or using NPPC (burden), and (7) patients cited completing tasks ahead of surgery and competing demands post-operatively (e.g., caring for a spouse or young children) as barriers (opportunity costs). An additional theme, the invisible and individualistic nature of pain, also emerged.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Peri-operative initiatives that educate patients about NPPC may be well-received and remind patients of \"wellness techniques\" and alert them to their role in pain management. Familiarity with NPPC may contribute to patients' self-efficacy using these techniques. However, some patients may require additional support to feel comfortable using NPPC in a post-operative context. Emphasizing the care team's role of directing patients to existing educational recourse or interactive supportive resources may be a low burden way of providing this support. Adding a health coach role to the intervention may also be an option for providing extra support without increasing care teams' workload.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>This study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05166356, https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05166356?term=%20NCT05166356&rank=1 Patient enrollment began on 3/01/2022.</p>","PeriodicalId":9128,"journal":{"name":"BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies","volume":"25 1","pages":"388"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12535021/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12906-025-05141-0","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INTEGRATIVE & COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Peri-operative pain management guidelines recommend multimodal strategies, but education on non-pharmacological pain care (NPPC) is lacking. The present study explored patients' experiences participating in the Healing After Surgery (HAS) initiative as part of a pragmatic clinical trial, designed to provide patients with peri-operative education and support for using NPPC.

Methods: We sought to interview two patients from each of the 31 surgical practices participating in the trial. Interviews were semi-structured, audio-recorded, and transcribed verbatim. We used a rapid analytic approach to summarize interview transcripts. Summaries were uploaded to NVivo and two researchers independently reviewed queries and produced analytic memos with key themes organized according to the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability's seven constructs.

Results: We analyzed interview transcripts for 71 patients. Findings revealed that patients (1) generally liked the HAS initiative (affective attitude), (2) it aligned with patients' beliefs about wellness techniques and concerns about opioids (ethicality), and (3) many patients had experience using NPPC (self-efficacy). However, (4) care team education and provision of NPPC was inconsistent (intervention coherence), (5) patients varied on their thoughts about the effectiveness of NPPC and the role of NPPC and medication (perceived effectiveness), (6) some patients found resources repetitive and encountered logistical challenges engaging with resources or using NPPC (burden), and (7) patients cited completing tasks ahead of surgery and competing demands post-operatively (e.g., caring for a spouse or young children) as barriers (opportunity costs). An additional theme, the invisible and individualistic nature of pain, also emerged.

Conclusions: Peri-operative initiatives that educate patients about NPPC may be well-received and remind patients of "wellness techniques" and alert them to their role in pain management. Familiarity with NPPC may contribute to patients' self-efficacy using these techniques. However, some patients may require additional support to feel comfortable using NPPC in a post-operative context. Emphasizing the care team's role of directing patients to existing educational recourse or interactive supportive resources may be a low burden way of providing this support. Adding a health coach role to the intervention may also be an option for providing extra support without increasing care teams' workload.

Trial registration: This study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05166356, https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05166356?term=%20NCT05166356&rank=1 Patient enrollment began on 3/01/2022.

患者围手术期非药物疼痛护理技术的经验:NOHARM试验的二次定性分析。
背景:围手术期疼痛管理指南推荐多模式策略,但缺乏对非药物疼痛护理(NPPC)的教育。本研究探讨了患者参与术后愈合(HAS)计划的经验,作为实用临床试验的一部分,旨在为患者提供围手术期教育和使用NPPC的支持。方法:我们从参与试验的31个外科诊所中分别采访了两名患者。采访是半结构化的,录音,并逐字抄写。我们使用快速分析的方法来总结采访记录。摘要被上传到NVivo,两名研究人员独立审查查询,并根据可接受性的七个构念的理论框架组织了关键主题的分析备忘录。结果:我们分析了71例患者的访谈记录。结果显示,患者(1)普遍喜欢HAS倡议(情感态度),(2)它与患者对健康技术的信念和对阿片类药物的关注(伦理)一致,(3)许多患者有使用NPPC(自我效能)的经历。然而,(4)护理团队的教育和NPPC的提供不一致(干预连贯性),(5)患者对NPPC的有效性以及NPPC和药物的作用的看法不同(感知有效性),(6)一些患者发现资源重复,在使用资源或使用NPPC时遇到后勤挑战(负担),(7)患者提到术前完成任务和术后需求竞争(例如,照顾配偶或年幼的孩子)作为障碍(机会成本)。另一个主题,疼痛的无形和个人主义性质,也出现了。结论:围手术期教育患者关于NPPC的举措可能会受到欢迎,并提醒患者“健康技术”,并提醒他们在疼痛管理中的作用。熟悉NPPC可能有助于患者使用这些技术的自我效能感。然而,一些患者可能需要额外的支持才能在术后使用NPPC。强调护理团队的作用,引导患者到现有的教育资源或互动式支持资源可能是提供这种支持的低负担方式。在干预中增加健康教练的角色也可能是在不增加护理团队工作量的情况下提供额外支持的一种选择。试验注册:本研究已在ClinicalTrials.gov注册,NCT05166356, https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05166356?term=%20NCT05166356&rank=1。患者于2022年3月1日开始入组。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies INTEGRATIVE & COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE-
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
2.60%
发文量
300
审稿时长
19 weeks
期刊介绍:
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信