Psychologically based interventions for adults with chronic neuropathic pain: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: As psychologically based interventions have been shown to have clinical utility for adults with chronic pain generally, a similar benefit might be expected in the management of chronic neuropathic pain (NeuP). However, to date, this has not been established, with existing systematic reviews on this topic being hampered by the scarcity of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This review aimed to identify the type of psychologically based interventions studied for adults with chronic NeuP. It also aimed to assess whether there are enough RCTs to justify undertaking an updated systematic review. METHODS: Seven databases and 2 clinical trial registries were searched for NeuP and psychologically based interventions from database inception to December 2021, and the search was updated in February 2023. The search was broadened by reviewing the reference list of included studies and contacting field experts. Predetermined study characteristics were extracted. RESULTS: Of 4682 records screened, 33 articles (less than 1%) met the eligibility criteria. Four broad intervention approaches were observed, including cognitive-behavioral approaches (n = 16), mindfulness/meditation (n = 10), trauma-focused therapy (n = 4), and hypnosis (n = 3). Thirteen RCTs were identified, and of these, 9 retained 20 participants in each arm after treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Cognitive-behavioral therapy was the most common therapeutic approach identified, whereas mindfulness/meditation was the most frequently used technique. Almost half to two-thirds of the studies reported significant improvements in pain, disability, or distress, which suggests that psychologically based interventions are potentially beneficial for adults with chronic NeuP. An updated systematic review seems warranted. STUDY REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework (https://osf.io) (December 6, 2021; DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/WNSTM).

Measuring the impact of nurse cue-response behaviour on cancer patients' emotional cues.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore the impact of nurse responses to patients' and family members' emotional cues and concerns during the chemotherapy education consultation. METHODS: 51 cancer patients and 13 nurses participated in this study. Nurse-delivered chemotherapy education sessions were audio-recorded, and patients completed the EORTC QLQ-C30 V3.0 questionnaire before the education. The audio records were transcribed and coded. RESULTS: Patients expressed their emotions more than family members, but patients' cues decreased when family were present. Patients with lower emotional wellbeing (greater psychological distress) prior to the consultation did not express more cues/concerns. Nurses responded to patients' and families' cues equally in a cue-facilitative fashion. Facilitative responses were associated with decreased patients' cues. CONCLUSION: Family presence appears to hinder patients' cues/concerns. Nurses' PS responses were associated with less cues/concerns by patients. PRACTICE IMPLICATION: The current study challenges the common assumption that a higher number of cues is indicative of effective consultation, and indicates the influence of family in patients' cues/concerns.

A review and recommendations for optimal outcome measures of anxiety, depression and general distress in studies evaluating psychosocial interventions for English-speaking adults with heterogeneous cancer diagnoses.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this paper is to inform choice of optimal patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of anxiety, depression and general distress for studies evaluating psychosocial interventions for English-speaking adults with heterogenous cancer diagnoses. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted to identify all PROMs used to assess anxiety, depression and general distress in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of psychosocial interventions for people with cancer published between 1999 and May 2009. Candidate PROMs were evaluated for content, evidence of reliability and validity, clinical meaningfulness, comparison data, efficiency, ease of administration, cognitive burden and track record in identifying treatment effects in RCTs of psychosocial interventions. Property ratings were weighted and summed to give an overall score out of 100. RESULTS: The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) scored highest overall (weighted score = 77.5), followed by the unofficial short-form of the Profile of Mood States (POMS), the POMS-37 (weighted score = 60), and the Centre for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) and original POMS (weighted score = 55 each). CONCLUSIONS: The HADS' efficiency and substantial track record recommend its use where anxiety, mixed affective disorders or general distress are outcomes of interest. However, continuing controversy concerning the HADS depression scale cautions against dependence where depressive disorders are of primary interest. Where cost is a concern, the POMS-37 is recommended to measure anxiety or mixed affective disorders but does not offer a suitable index of general distress and, like the HADS, emphasises anhedonia in measuring depression. Where depression is the sole focus, the CES-D is recommended.