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

Q2 Health Professions
Danielle Gentile, Danielle Boselli, Susan I Yaguda, R. Greiner, Chase Bailey-Dorton
{"title":"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","authors":"Danielle Gentile, Danielle Boselli, Susan I Yaguda, R. Greiner, Chase Bailey-Dorton","doi":"10.3822/IJTMB.V14I1.549","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"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.","PeriodicalId":39090,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Therapeutic Massage and Bodywork: Research, Education, and Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pain Improvement After Healing Touch and Massage in Breast Cancer: an Observational Retrospective Study\",\"authors\":\"Danielle Gentile, Danielle Boselli, Susan I Yaguda, R. Greiner, Chase Bailey-Dorton\",\"doi\":\"10.3822/IJTMB.V14I1.549\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"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.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39090,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Therapeutic Massage and Bodywork: Research, Education, and Practice\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Therapeutic Massage and Bodywork: Research, Education, and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3822/IJTMB.V14I1.549\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Health Professions\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Therapeutic Massage and Bodywork: Research, Education, and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3822/IJTMB.V14I1.549","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: 2

摘要

背景治疗触摸(HT)和肿瘤按摩(OM)是非药物性疼痛干预措施,但尚未对癌症疼痛进行比较有效性研究。目的对癌症亚组进行分析,比较HT与OM治疗疼痛的有效性。背景研究在四个地区的癌症研究所和支持性肿瘤科的学术混合、多站点、基于社区的门诊环境中进行。受试者癌症连续期的癌症门诊乳腺癌患者经历了常规临床、非实验性的HT或OM。研究设计该研究是对更大数据集的观察性、回顾性、比较有效性的事后亚分析。报告疼痛<2的患者被排除在外。计算治疗前后疼痛评分和差异。Logistic回归通过模态对治疗后疼痛进行建模,并对治疗前疼痛进行调整。将疼痛减轻≥2分(具有临床意义)的比例与卡方检验进行比较。干预研究集中在HT或OM的第一次治疗上。主要结果衡量治疗前和治疗后的疼痛(范围:0=无疼痛到10=最严重的疼痛)。结果共有407名患者报告了治疗前后疼痛评分,其中233名(57.3%)接受HT治疗,174名(42.8%)接受OM治疗。HT患者治疗前平均疼痛(M=5.1,±2.3)高于OM患者(M=4.3,±2.1)(p<.001);HT(M=2.7,±2.2)治疗后的平均疼痛仍然高于OM(M=1.9,±1.7)(p<0.01)。HT和OM的疼痛减轻平均差异为2.4。HT(p<0.01)和OM(p<0.01)都与疼痛减轻有关。临床显著疼痛减轻的比例相似(65.7%的HT和69.0%的OM,p=.483)。模式与疼痛改善无关(p=.072)。结论HT和OM都与临床显著疼痛改善有关。未来的研究应该探索人们对癌症模式的态度以及癌症阶段和治疗状态对模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。
Pain Improvement After Healing Touch and Massage in Breast Cancer: an Observational Retrospective Study
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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