Pain management strategies for older adults in palliative care: A scoping review.

IF 12.4
Mélanie Bérubé, Sandrine Linsotan, Lynn Gauthier, Bradley Godwin, Étienne Belzile, Félix Pageau, Thomas Hadjistavropoulos, Michael Verret, Laurence Bourque, Giada Giorgini, Axel Benhamed, Esther van Lieshout, Emil Schemitsch, Line Guénette, Diane Tapp, Steven Papp, Natasha Galant, Éric Troncy, Imane Labzagui, Chantal Morency, Norbert Dion, Guillaume Léonard, Stéphane Pelet
{"title":"Pain management strategies for older adults in palliative care: A scoping review.","authors":"Mélanie Bérubé, Sandrine Linsotan, Lynn Gauthier, Bradley Godwin, Étienne Belzile, Félix Pageau, Thomas Hadjistavropoulos, Michael Verret, Laurence Bourque, Giada Giorgini, Axel Benhamed, Esther van Lieshout, Emil Schemitsch, Line Guénette, Diane Tapp, Steven Papp, Natasha Galant, Éric Troncy, Imane Labzagui, Chantal Morency, Norbert Dion, Guillaume Léonard, Stéphane Pelet","doi":"10.1016/j.arr.2026.103423","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>With the aging population, the demand for palliative care is expected to increase. Pain management is a critical component of palliative care with unique considerations for older patients. The aim of this scoping review was to map the nature and extent of the evidence on pain management strategies in this population.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched databases for peer-reviewed studies and grey literature on pain management in older adults receiving palliative care. Strategies were classified as opioid analgesics, non-opioid medications, procedural, non-pharmacological, educational, and multifaceted interventions. Frequencies and proportions were used to describe the strategies, reported improvements, and levels of evidence.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 117 studies. Most focused on cancer populations (82/117, 71%), and the majority of participants (98/114, 86%) were aged 65-74 years on average. Overall, 68% of the studies yielded moderate to low level of evidence. Opioids and multifaceted interventions were the most frequently evaluated strategies, each examined in 32% (37/117) of studies. Across both high- and moderate/low-evidence studies, pain reduction was most consistently reported for procedural interventions (3/3, 100%; 3/3, 100%), opioids (3/5, 60%; 25/32, 78%), and multifaceted interventions (4/9, 44%; 20/23, 87%). Favourable findings were most often reported for combinations of opioids, opioids for breakthrough pain, nerve blocks or local anesthesia, cannabis, music or massage therapy, exercise, and biopsychosocial or care organization interventions.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This review mapped pain management strategies for older adults in palliative care, identified key evidence gaps, particularly among oldest-old individuals and those with non-cancer conditions, and highlighted the need for stronger research.</p>","PeriodicalId":93862,"journal":{"name":"Ageing research reviews","volume":" ","pages":"103423"},"PeriodicalIF":12.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ageing research reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arr.2026.103423","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: With the aging population, the demand for palliative care is expected to increase. Pain management is a critical component of palliative care with unique considerations for older patients. The aim of this scoping review was to map the nature and extent of the evidence on pain management strategies in this population.

Methods: We searched databases for peer-reviewed studies and grey literature on pain management in older adults receiving palliative care. Strategies were classified as opioid analgesics, non-opioid medications, procedural, non-pharmacological, educational, and multifaceted interventions. Frequencies and proportions were used to describe the strategies, reported improvements, and levels of evidence.

Results: We included 117 studies. Most focused on cancer populations (82/117, 71%), and the majority of participants (98/114, 86%) were aged 65-74 years on average. Overall, 68% of the studies yielded moderate to low level of evidence. Opioids and multifaceted interventions were the most frequently evaluated strategies, each examined in 32% (37/117) of studies. Across both high- and moderate/low-evidence studies, pain reduction was most consistently reported for procedural interventions (3/3, 100%; 3/3, 100%), opioids (3/5, 60%; 25/32, 78%), and multifaceted interventions (4/9, 44%; 20/23, 87%). Favourable findings were most often reported for combinations of opioids, opioids for breakthrough pain, nerve blocks or local anesthesia, cannabis, music or massage therapy, exercise, and biopsychosocial or care organization interventions.

Conclusion: This review mapped pain management strategies for older adults in palliative care, identified key evidence gaps, particularly among oldest-old individuals and those with non-cancer conditions, and highlighted the need for stronger research.

姑息治疗中老年人疼痛管理策略:范围综述。
背景:随着人口老龄化,对姑息治疗的需求预计会增加。疼痛管理是姑息治疗的关键组成部分,对老年患者有独特的考虑。本综述的目的是绘制这一人群疼痛管理策略证据的性质和程度。方法:我们检索了接受姑息治疗的老年人疼痛管理的同行评审研究和灰色文献数据库。策略分为阿片类镇痛药、非阿片类药物、程序性、非药理学、教育性和多方面干预。频率和比例用于描述策略、报告的改进和证据水平。结果:我们纳入了117项研究。大多数关注癌症人群(82/117,71%),大多数参与者(98/114,86%)的平均年龄为65-74岁。总体而言,68%的研究得出了中低水平的证据。阿片类药物和多方面干预是最常被评估的策略,在32%(37/117)的研究中分别进行了检查。在高证据和中/低证据的研究中,程序性干预(3/ 3,100%;3/ 3,100%)、阿片类药物(3/ 5,60%;25/ 32,78%)和多方面干预(4/ 9,44%;20/ 23,87%)的疼痛减轻报告最为一致。阿片类药物、阿片类药物治疗突破性疼痛、神经阻滞或局部麻醉、大麻、音乐或按摩疗法、运动以及生物心理社会或护理组织干预措施的组合最常报道有利的结果。结论:本综述绘制了姑息治疗中老年人疼痛管理策略,确定了关键证据差距,特别是在老年人和非癌症患者中,并强调了加强研究的必要性。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
小红书