Patient and carer experiences of pain care in an Australian regional comprehensive cancer care setting: a qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Pain is a common and distressing symptom in people living with cancer that requires a patient-centred approach to management. Since 2010, the Australian Government has invested heavily in developing regional cancer centres to improve cancer outcomes. This study explored patient and carer experiences of care from a regional cancer centre with specific reference to cancer pain management. METHODS: A qualitative approach was used with semi-structured telephone interviews. Participants were outpatients at a regional cancer centre in New South Wales who had reported worst pain of 2 or more on a 0-10 numerical rating scale, and their carers. Questions explored experiences of pain assessment and management, and perceptions of how these were affected by the regional setting. Researchers analysed data using a deductive approach, using Mead and Bower's (2000) framework of factors influencing patient-centred care. RESULTS: Eighteen telephone interviews were conducted with 13 patients and 5 carers. Participants perceived that living in a regional setting conferred advantages to the patient-centredness of care via influences at the levels of professional context, the doctor-patient relationship, and consultation. These influences included established and ongoing relationships with a smaller number of care providers who were members of the community, and heightened accessibility in terms of travel/parking, flexible appointments, and ample time spent with each patient. The first of these factors was also perceived to contribute to continuity of care between specialist and primary care providers. However, one negative case reported disagreement between providers and a difficulty accessing specialist pain services. Several participants also reported a preference, and unmet need, for non-pharmacological rather than pharmacological pain management. CONCLUSION: While much research has focused on lack of services and poorer outcomes for people with cancer in rural areas, the Australian regional setting may offer benefits to the patient-centredness of cancer pain management and continuity of care. More research is needed to better understand the benefits and trade-offs of cancer care in regional versus urban settings, and how each can learn from the other. An unmet need for non-pharmacological rather than pharmacological pain management is among the most consistent findings of qualitative studies of patient/carer preferences across settings.

Effect of Cancer Pain Guideline Implementation on Pain Outcomes Among Adult Outpatients With Cancer-Related Pain: A Stepped Wedge Cluster Randomized Trial.

Importance: An evidence-practice gap exists for cancer pain management, and cancer pain remains prevalent and disabling. Objectives: To evaluate the capacity of 3 cancer pain guideline implementation strategies to improve pain-related outcomes for patients attending oncology and palliative care outpatient services. Design, Setting, and Participants: A pragmatic, stepped wedge, cluster-randomized, nonblinded, clinical trial was conducted between 2014 and 2019. The clusters were cancer centers in Australia providing oncology and palliative care outpatient clinics. Participants included a consecutive cohort of adult outpatients with advanced cancer and a worst pain severity score of 2 or more out of 10 on a numeric rating scale (NRS). Data were collected between August 2015 and May 2019. Data were analyzed July to October 2019 and reanalyzed November to December 2021. Interventions: Guideline implementation strategies at the cluster, health professional, and patient levels introduced with the support of a clinical champion. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary measure of effect was the percentage of participants initially screened as having moderate to severe worst pain (NRS ≥ 5) who experienced a clinically important improvement of 30% or more 1 week later. Secondary outcomes included mean average pain, patient empowerment, fidelity to the intervention, and quality of life and were measured in all participants with a pain score of 2 or more 10 at weeks 1, 2, and 4. Results: Of 8099 patients screened at 6 clusters, 1564 were eligible, and 359 were recruited during the control phase (mean [SD] age, 64.2 [12.1] years; 196 men [55%]) and 329 during the intervention phase (mean [SD] age, 63.6 [12.7] years; 155 men [47%]), with no significant differences between phases on baseline measures. The mean (SD) baseline worst pain scores were 5.0 (2.6) and 4.9 (2.6) for control and intervention phases, respectively. The mean (SD) baseline average pain scores were 3.5 (2.1) for both groups. For the primary outcome, the proportions of participants with a 30% or greater reduction in a pain score of 5 or more of 10 at baseline were similar in the control and intervention phases (31 of 280 participants [11.9%] vs 30 of 264 participants [11.8%]; OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.79-1.60; P = .51). No significant differences were found in secondary outcomes between phases. Fidelity to the intervention was low. Conclusions and Relevance: A suite of implementation strategies was insufficient to improve pain-related outcomes for outpatients with cancer-related pain. Further evaluation is needed to determine the required clinical resources needed to enable wide-scale uptake of the fundamental elements of cancer pain care. Ongoing quality improvement activities should be supported to improve sustainability.

Protocol for a phase III pragmatic stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening and guidelines with, versus without, implementation strategies for improving pain in adults with cancer attending outpatient oncology and palliative care services: the Stop Cancer PAIN trial.

BACKGROUND: Pain is a common and distressing symptom in people with cancer, but is under-recognised and under-treated. Australian guidelines for 'Cancer Pain Management in Adults' are available on the Cancer Council Australia Cancer Guideline Wiki. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a suite of guideline implementation strategies for improving pain outcomes in adults with cancer in oncology and palliative care outpatient settings. METHODS: The study will use a stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled design, with oncology and palliative care outpatient services as the clusters. Patients will be eligible if they are adults with cancer and pain presenting to participating services during the study period. During an initial control arm, services will routinely screen patients for average and worst pain over the past 24 h using a 0-10 numerical rating scale (NRS) and have unfettered access to online guidelines. During the intervention arm, staff at each service will be encouraged to use: 1) a patient education booklet and self-management resource; 2) an online spaced learning cancer pain education module for clinicians from different disciplines; and 3) audit and feedback of service performance on key indices of cancer pain screening, assessment and management. Service-based clinical change champions will lead implementation of these strategies. The trial's primary outcome will be the probability that patients initially screened as having moderate-severe (≥5/10 NRS) worst pain experience a clinically important improvement one week later, defined as ≥ 30% reduction. Secondary outcomes will include patient empowerment and quality of life, carer experience, and cost-effectiveness. For the main analysis, linear mixed models will be used, accounting for clustering and the longitudinal design. Eighty-two patients per service at six services (N = 492) will provide > 90% power. A qualitative sub-study and analyses of structural and process factors will explore opportunities for further refinement and tailoring of the intervention. DISCUSSION: This pragmatic trial will inform implementation of guidelines across a range of oncology and palliative care outpatient service contexts. If found effective, the implementation strategies will be made freely available on the Wiki alongside the guidelines. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered 23/01/2015 on the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ( ACTRN12615000064505 ).

Inhibitory effects during object name retrieval: The effect of interval between prime and target on picture naming responses.

Three picture naming experiments are reported which examine the relationship between the apparent inhibition of a response on one trial, and naming latency on the subsequent trial. The design of each experiment involves the presentation of prime and target pairs, either presented in succession (Lag 1 condition), or separated by two intervening unrelated trials (Lag 3 condition). A control condition is also included. In Experiment 1, a speeded picture naming task is used, and naming errors are analysed. Target pictures are misnamed at above chance rates with the name of the semantically related prime picture in the Lag 3 condition. In contrast, these prime-related errors do not occur in the Lag 1 condition, suggesting a brief inhibitory effect. If primes are briefly inhibited, then target naming latencies immediately following a related prime should be quicker than target latencies in the Lag 3 condition. Experiment 2 confirms this pattern of results, using exactly the same stimuli and design, but standard naming instructions. Experiment 3 examines whether the inferred inhibition is the result of a self-inhibitory mechanism, using a repetition priming paradigm. If Lag 1 prime representations are self-inhibited, then facilitatory effects from prime/target repetition should be stronger in the Lag 3 condition, than in the Lag 1 condition. The data from Expt 3 were not consistent with this prediction. Taken together, the results of the three experiments suggest that a brief inhibitory effect occurs after retrieval of an object name, and that the inhibition may be accomplished by mechanisms other than self-inhibition.