Pain self-management interventions for community-based patients with advanced cancer: a research programme including the IMPACCT RCT

Q4 Medicine
M. Bennett, M. Allsop, Peter Allen, Christine Allmark, B. Bewick, K. Black, A. Blenkinsopp, Julia M. Brown, S. Closs, Zoe Edwards, K. Flemming, Marie Fletcher, R. Foy, M. Godfrey, Julia Hackett, G. Hall, S. Hartley, Daniel Howdon, N. Hughes, C. Hulme, Richard Jones, D. Meads, M. Mulvey, J. O’Dwyer, S. Pavitt, P. Rainey, Diana Robinson, Sally Taylor, Angelina W. Wray, A. Wright-Hughes, L. Ziegler
{"title":"Pain self-management interventions for community-based patients with advanced cancer: a research programme including the IMPACCT RCT","authors":"M. Bennett, M. Allsop, Peter Allen, Christine Allmark, B. Bewick, K. Black, A. Blenkinsopp, Julia M. Brown, S. Closs, Zoe Edwards, K. Flemming, Marie Fletcher, R. Foy, M. Godfrey, Julia Hackett, G. Hall, S. Hartley, Daniel Howdon, N. Hughes, C. Hulme, Richard Jones, D. Meads, M. Mulvey, J. O’Dwyer, S. Pavitt, P. Rainey, Diana Robinson, Sally Taylor, Angelina W. Wray, A. Wright-Hughes, L. Ziegler","doi":"10.3310/pgfar09150","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n Each year in England and Wales, 150,000 people die from cancer, of whom 110,000 will suffer from cancer pain. Research highlights that cancer pain remains common, severe and undertreated, and may lead to hospital admissions.\n \n \n \n To develop and evaluate pain self-management interventions for community-based patients with advanced cancer.\n \n \n \n A programme of mixed-methods intervention development work leading to a pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial of a multicomponent intervention for pain management compared with usual care, including an assessment of cost-effectiveness.\n \n \n \n Patients, including those with metastatic solid cancer (histological, cytological or radiological evidence) and/or those receiving anti-cancer therapy with palliative intent, and health professionals involved in the delivery of community-based palliative care.\n \n \n \n For the randomised controlled trial, patients were recruited from oncology outpatient clinics and were randomly allocated to intervention or control and followed up at home.\n \n \n \n The Supported Self-Management intervention comprised an educational component called Tackling Cancer Pain, and an eHealth component for routine pain assessment and monitoring called PainCheck.\n \n \n \n The primary outcome was pain severity (measured using the Brief Pain Inventory). The secondary outcomes included pain interference (measured using the Brief Pain Inventory), participants’ pain knowledge and experience, and cost-effectiveness. We estimated costs and health-related quality-of-life outcomes using decision modelling and a separate within-trial economic analysis. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios per quality-adjusted life-year for the trial period.\n \n \n \n Work package 1 – We found barriers to and variation in the co-ordination of advanced cancer care by oncology and primary care professionals. We identified that the median time between referral to palliative care services and death for 42,758 patients in the UK was 48 days. We identified key components for self-management and developed and tested our Tackling Cancer Pain resource for acceptability. Work package 2 – Patients with advanced cancer and their health professionals recognised the benefits of an electronic system to monitor pain, but had reservations about how such a system might work in practice. We developed and tested a prototype PainCheck system. Work package 3 – We found that strong opioids were prescribed for 48% of patients in the last year of life at a median of 9 weeks before death. We delivered Medicines Use Reviews to patients, in which many medicines-related problems were identified. Work package 4 – A total of 161 oncology outpatients were randomised in our clinical trial, receiving either supported self-management (n = 80) or usual care (n = 81); their median survival from randomisation was 53 weeks. Primary and sensitivity analyses found no significant treatment differences for the primary outcome or for other secondary outcomes of pain severity or health-related quality of life. The literature-based decision modelling indicated that information and feedback interventions similar to the supported self-management intervention could be cost-effective. This model was not used to extrapolate the outcomes of the trial over a longer time horizon because the statistical analysis of the trial data found no difference between the trial arms in terms of the primary outcome measure (pain severity). The within-trial economic evaluation base-case analysis found that supported self-management reduced costs by £587 and yielded marginally higher quality-adjusted life-years (0.0018) than usual care. However, the difference in quality-adjusted life-years between the two trial arms was negligible and this was not in line with the decision model that had been developed. Our process evaluation found low fidelity of the interventions delivered by clinical professionals.\n \n \n \n In the randomised controlled trial, the low fidelity of the interventions and the challenge of the study design, which forced the usual-care arm to have earlier access to palliative care services, might explain the lack of observed benefit. Overall, 71% of participants returned outcome data at 6 or 12 weeks and so we used administrative data to estimate costs. Our decision model did not include the negative trial results from our randomised controlled trial and, therefore, may overestimate the likelihood of cost-effectiveness.\n \n \n \n Our programme of research has revealed new insights into how patients with advanced cancer manage their pain and the challenges faced by health professionals in identifying those who need more help. Our clinical trial failed to show an added benefit of our interventions to enhance existing community palliative care support, although both the decision model and the economic evaluation of the trial indicated that supported self-management could result in lower health-care costs.\n \n \n \n There is a need for further research to (1) understand and facilitate triggers that prompt earlier integration of palliative care and pain management within oncology services; (2) determine the optimal timing of technologies for self-management; and (3) examine prescriber and patient behaviour to achieve the earlier initiation and use of strong opioid treatment.\n \n \n \n Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN18281271.\n \n \n \n This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 9, No. 15. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.\n","PeriodicalId":32307,"journal":{"name":"Programme Grants for Applied Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Programme Grants for Applied Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/pgfar09150","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Each year in England and Wales, 150,000 people die from cancer, of whom 110,000 will suffer from cancer pain. Research highlights that cancer pain remains common, severe and undertreated, and may lead to hospital admissions. To develop and evaluate pain self-management interventions for community-based patients with advanced cancer. A programme of mixed-methods intervention development work leading to a pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial of a multicomponent intervention for pain management compared with usual care, including an assessment of cost-effectiveness. Patients, including those with metastatic solid cancer (histological, cytological or radiological evidence) and/or those receiving anti-cancer therapy with palliative intent, and health professionals involved in the delivery of community-based palliative care. For the randomised controlled trial, patients were recruited from oncology outpatient clinics and were randomly allocated to intervention or control and followed up at home. The Supported Self-Management intervention comprised an educational component called Tackling Cancer Pain, and an eHealth component for routine pain assessment and monitoring called PainCheck. The primary outcome was pain severity (measured using the Brief Pain Inventory). The secondary outcomes included pain interference (measured using the Brief Pain Inventory), participants’ pain knowledge and experience, and cost-effectiveness. We estimated costs and health-related quality-of-life outcomes using decision modelling and a separate within-trial economic analysis. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios per quality-adjusted life-year for the trial period. Work package 1 – We found barriers to and variation in the co-ordination of advanced cancer care by oncology and primary care professionals. We identified that the median time between referral to palliative care services and death for 42,758 patients in the UK was 48 days. We identified key components for self-management and developed and tested our Tackling Cancer Pain resource for acceptability. Work package 2 – Patients with advanced cancer and their health professionals recognised the benefits of an electronic system to monitor pain, but had reservations about how such a system might work in practice. We developed and tested a prototype PainCheck system. Work package 3 – We found that strong opioids were prescribed for 48% of patients in the last year of life at a median of 9 weeks before death. We delivered Medicines Use Reviews to patients, in which many medicines-related problems were identified. Work package 4 – A total of 161 oncology outpatients were randomised in our clinical trial, receiving either supported self-management (n = 80) or usual care (n = 81); their median survival from randomisation was 53 weeks. Primary and sensitivity analyses found no significant treatment differences for the primary outcome or for other secondary outcomes of pain severity or health-related quality of life. The literature-based decision modelling indicated that information and feedback interventions similar to the supported self-management intervention could be cost-effective. This model was not used to extrapolate the outcomes of the trial over a longer time horizon because the statistical analysis of the trial data found no difference between the trial arms in terms of the primary outcome measure (pain severity). The within-trial economic evaluation base-case analysis found that supported self-management reduced costs by £587 and yielded marginally higher quality-adjusted life-years (0.0018) than usual care. However, the difference in quality-adjusted life-years between the two trial arms was negligible and this was not in line with the decision model that had been developed. Our process evaluation found low fidelity of the interventions delivered by clinical professionals. In the randomised controlled trial, the low fidelity of the interventions and the challenge of the study design, which forced the usual-care arm to have earlier access to palliative care services, might explain the lack of observed benefit. Overall, 71% of participants returned outcome data at 6 or 12 weeks and so we used administrative data to estimate costs. Our decision model did not include the negative trial results from our randomised controlled trial and, therefore, may overestimate the likelihood of cost-effectiveness. Our programme of research has revealed new insights into how patients with advanced cancer manage their pain and the challenges faced by health professionals in identifying those who need more help. Our clinical trial failed to show an added benefit of our interventions to enhance existing community palliative care support, although both the decision model and the economic evaluation of the trial indicated that supported self-management could result in lower health-care costs. There is a need for further research to (1) understand and facilitate triggers that prompt earlier integration of palliative care and pain management within oncology services; (2) determine the optimal timing of technologies for self-management; and (3) examine prescriber and patient behaviour to achieve the earlier initiation and use of strong opioid treatment. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN18281271. This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 9, No. 15. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
社区晚期癌症患者疼痛自我管理干预:包括IMPACCT随机对照试验在内的一项研究计划
在英格兰和威尔士,每年有15万人死于癌症,其中11万人将遭受癌症带来的痛苦。研究强调,癌症疼痛仍然很常见,严重且治疗不足,并可能导致住院。制定和评估社区晚期癌症患者疼痛自我管理干预措施。一项混合方法干预开发工作计划,导致一项实用的多中心随机对照试验,将多组分干预与常规护理进行比较,包括成本效益评估。患者,包括转移性实体癌患者(组织学、细胞学或放射学证据)和/或以姑息治疗为目的接受抗癌治疗的患者,以及参与提供社区姑息治疗的卫生专业人员。在随机对照试验中,患者从肿瘤门诊诊所招募,随机分配到干预组或对照组,并在家中随访。支持自我管理干预包括一个名为“解决癌症疼痛”的教育部分,以及一个名为“PainCheck”的常规疼痛评估和监测的电子健康部分。主要结局是疼痛严重程度(使用简短疼痛量表测量)。次要结果包括疼痛干扰(使用简短疼痛量表测量),参与者的疼痛知识和经验,以及成本效益。我们使用决策模型和单独的试验内经济分析来估计成本和与健康相关的生活质量结果。我们计算了试验期间每个质量调整生命年的增量成本-效果比。工作包1 -我们发现肿瘤和初级保健专业人员在协调晚期癌症护理方面存在障碍和差异。我们发现,在英国42758名患者转介到姑息治疗服务和死亡之间的中位时间为48天。我们确定了自我管理的关键组成部分,并开发和测试了我们的治疗癌症疼痛资源的可接受性。工作包2 -晚期癌症患者和他们的健康专业人员认识到电子系统监测疼痛的好处,但对这种系统如何在实践中发挥作用持保留态度。我们开发并测试了一个PainCheck原型系统。工作包3 -我们发现,48%的患者在生命的最后一年(死亡前9周的中位数)开了强阿片类药物处方。我们向患者提供了药物使用评论,其中发现了许多与药物相关的问题。工作包4 -我们的临床试验中,共有161名肿瘤门诊患者被随机分组,接受支持的自我管理(n = 80)或常规护理(n = 81);随机化后的中位生存期为53周。主要分析和敏感性分析发现,在主要结局或疼痛严重程度或与健康相关的生活质量等其他次要结局方面,治疗没有显著差异。基于文献的决策模型表明,类似于支持性自我管理干预的信息和反馈干预可能具有成本效益。该模型未用于推断更长时间范围内的试验结果,因为对试验数据的统计分析发现,在主要结果测量(疼痛严重程度)方面,试验组之间没有差异。试验内经济评估基本案例分析发现,与常规护理相比,支持自我管理减少了587英镑的成本,产生的质量调整生命年(0.0018)略高。然而,两个试验组之间的质量调整寿命年的差异可以忽略不计,这与已经开发的决策模型不一致。我们的过程评估发现临床专业人员提供的干预措施的保真度较低。在随机对照试验中,干预措施的低保真度和研究设计的挑战,迫使常规护理组更早地获得姑息治疗服务,可能解释了缺乏观察到的益处。总体而言,71%的参与者在6周或12周时返回结果数据,因此我们使用管理数据来估计成本。我们的决策模型没有包括随机对照试验的负面试验结果,因此可能高估了成本效益的可能性。我们的研究项目揭示了晚期癌症患者如何控制疼痛的新见解,以及卫生专业人员在确定需要更多帮助的人时所面临的挑战。我们的临床试验没有显示我们的干预措施在增强现有社区姑息治疗支持方面有额外的好处,尽管试验的决策模型和经济评估都表明,支持的自我管理可以降低医疗保健成本。
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
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
审稿时长
53 weeks
×
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