Pain Improvement After Healing Touch and Massage in Breast Cancer: an Observational Retrospective Study.

Q2 Health Professions
Danielle Gentile, Danielle Boselli, Susan Yaguda, Rebecca Greiner, Chase Bailey-Dorton
{"title":"Pain Improvement After Healing Touch and Massage in Breast Cancer: an Observational Retrospective Study.","authors":"Danielle Gentile,&nbsp;Danielle Boselli,&nbsp;Susan Yaguda,&nbsp;Rebecca Greiner,&nbsp;Chase Bailey-Dorton","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Healing Touch (HT) and Oncology Massage (OM) are nonpharmacologic pain interventions, yet a comparative effectiveness study has not been conducted for pain in breast cancer.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This breast cancer subgroup analysis compared the effectiveness of HT vs. OM on pain.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>The research occurred at an outpatient setting at an academic hybrid, multi-site, community-based cancer institute and Department of Supportive Oncology across four regional locations.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Breast cancer outpatients along the cancer continuum who experienced routine clinical, nonexperimentally manipulated HT or OM.</p><p><strong>Research design: </strong>The study was an observational, retrospective, comparative effectiveness post hoc subanalysis of a larger dataset. Patients reporting pain < 2 were excluded. Pre- and posttherapy pain scores and differences were calculated. Logistic regression modeled posttherapy pain by modality, adjusting for pretherapy pain. The proportions experiencing ≥ 2-point (clinically significant) pain reduction were compared with chi-square tests.</p><p><strong>Intervention: </strong>The study focused on the first session of either HT or OM.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>Pre- and posttherapy pain (range: 0 = no pain to 10 = worst possible pain).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 407 patients reported pre- and posttherapy pain scores, comprised of 233 (57.3%) who received HT and 174 (42.8%) who received OM. Pretherapy mean pain was higher in HT (M=5.1, ± 2.3) than OM (M=4.3, ± 2.1) (<i>p</i> < .001); posttherapy mean pain remained higher in HT (M=2.7, ± 2.2) than OM (M=1.9, ± 1.7) (<i>p</i> < .001). Mean difference in pain reduction was 2.4 for both HT and OM. Both HT (<i>p</i> < .001) and OM (<i>p</i> < .001) were associated with reduced pain. Proportions of clinically significant pain reduction were similar (65.7% HT and 69.0% OM, <i>p</i> = .483). Modality was not associated with pain improvement (<i>p</i> = .072).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both HT and OM were associated with clinically significant pain improvement. Future research should explore attitudes toward the modalities and potential influence of cancer stage and treatment status on modality self-selection.</p>","PeriodicalId":39090,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Therapeutic Massage and Bodywork: Research, Education, and Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7892332/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Therapeutic Massage and Bodywork: Research, Education, and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Health Professions","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Healing Touch (HT) and Oncology Massage (OM) are nonpharmacologic pain interventions, yet a comparative effectiveness study has not been conducted for pain in breast cancer.

Purpose: This breast cancer subgroup analysis compared the effectiveness of HT vs. OM on pain.

Setting: The research occurred at an outpatient setting at an academic hybrid, multi-site, community-based cancer institute and Department of Supportive Oncology across four regional locations.

Participants: Breast cancer outpatients along the cancer continuum who experienced routine clinical, nonexperimentally manipulated HT or OM.

Research design: The study was an observational, retrospective, comparative effectiveness post hoc subanalysis of a larger dataset. Patients reporting pain < 2 were excluded. Pre- and posttherapy pain scores and differences were calculated. Logistic regression modeled posttherapy pain by modality, adjusting for pretherapy pain. The proportions experiencing ≥ 2-point (clinically significant) pain reduction were compared with chi-square tests.

Intervention: The study focused on the first session of either HT or OM.

Main outcome measures: Pre- and posttherapy pain (range: 0 = no pain to 10 = worst possible pain).

Results: A total of 407 patients reported pre- and posttherapy pain scores, comprised of 233 (57.3%) who received HT and 174 (42.8%) who received OM. Pretherapy mean pain was higher in HT (M=5.1, ± 2.3) than OM (M=4.3, ± 2.1) (p < .001); posttherapy mean pain remained higher in HT (M=2.7, ± 2.2) than OM (M=1.9, ± 1.7) (p < .001). Mean difference in pain reduction was 2.4 for both HT and OM. Both HT (p < .001) and OM (p < .001) were associated with reduced pain. Proportions of clinically significant pain reduction were similar (65.7% HT and 69.0% OM, p = .483). Modality was not associated with pain improvement (p = .072).

Conclusions: Both HT and OM were associated with clinically significant pain improvement. Future research should explore attitudes toward the modalities and potential influence of cancer stage and treatment status on modality self-selection.

乳腺癌触摸和按摩治疗后疼痛改善:一项观察性回顾性研究。
背景:治疗触摸(Healing Touch, HT)和肿瘤按摩(Oncology Massage, OM)均为非药物性疼痛干预措施,但尚未有针对乳腺癌疼痛的比较有效性研究。目的:这个乳腺癌亚组分析比较了激素疗法和OM治疗疼痛的效果。环境:该研究发生在一个学术混合、多地点、社区癌症研究所和支持肿瘤科的门诊环境中,横跨四个地区。参与者:经历过常规临床、非实验操作的HT或OM的乳腺癌门诊患者。研究设计:该研究是一项观察性、回顾性、比较有效性的大型数据集事后亚分析。报告疼痛< 2的患者被排除在外。计算治疗前和治疗后疼痛评分和差异。Logistic回归根据治疗前疼痛调整治疗后疼痛模式。疼痛减轻≥2点(具有临床意义)的比例采用卡方检验进行比较。干预:该研究集中于HT或OM的第一次治疗。主要结果测量:治疗前和治疗后疼痛(范围:0 =无疼痛至10 =最严重的疼痛)。结果:共有407例患者报告了治疗前和治疗后的疼痛评分,其中233例(57.3%)接受HT治疗,174例(42.8%)接受OM治疗。治疗前HT组的平均疼痛(M=5.1,±2.3)高于OM组(M=4.3,±2.1)(p < 0.001);治疗后HT组的平均疼痛(M=2.7,±2.2)高于OM组(M=1.9,±1.7)(p < 0.001)。在疼痛减轻方面,HT和OM的平均差异为2.4。HT (p < 0.001)和OM (p < 0.001)均与疼痛减轻有关。临床明显疼痛减轻的比例相似(65.7% HT和69.0% OM, p = .483)。治疗方式与疼痛改善无关(p = 0.072)。结论:HT和OM均与临床显著的疼痛改善相关。未来的研究应探讨对治疗方式的态度以及癌症分期和治疗状况对治疗方式自我选择的潜在影响。
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
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
16
审稿时长
22 weeks
期刊介绍: The IJTMB is a peer-reviewed journal focusing on the research (methodological, physiological, and clinical) and professional development of therapeutic massage and bodywork and its providers, encompassing all allied health providers whose services include manually applied therapeutic massage and bodywork. The Journal provides a professional forum for editorial input; scientifically-based articles of a research, educational, and practice-oriented nature; readers’ commentaries on journal content and related professional matters; and pertinent news and announcements.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信