RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: We compared the effectiveness and cost of a pain screening and treatment program, with usual care in head and neck cancer patients with significant pain. METHODS: Patients were screened for the presence of pain and then randomly assigned to either an intervention group, consisting of a pain treatment protocol and an education program, or to usual care. Primary outcome was change in the Pain Severity Index (PSI) over three months. RESULTS: We screened 1074 patients of whom 156 were randomized to either intervention or usual care. Mean PSI was reduced over three months in both groups, with no significant difference between the two groups. The Pain Management Index (PMI) at three months, was significantly improved in the intervention group compared with usual care (P<0.001), as was Patient Satisfaction (mean difference in scores was statistically significant: -0.30 [-0.60 to -0.15]). All subjects reported clinically significant levels of anxiety and depression throughout the study. Treatment costs were significantly higher for intervention (mean=£400) compared with usual care (£200), with a low likelihood of being cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in the Pain Severity Index between the two groups. However there were significant improvements in the intervention group in patient satisfaction and PMI. The pain screening process itself was effective. Sufficient benefit was demonstrated as a result of the intervention to allow continued development of pain treatment pathways, rather than allowing pain treatment to be left to nonformalised ad hoc arrangements.