Pain management and outcomes in cancer patients: comparison between oncological and palliative sets of care

Author:

Roberto Anna,Corli Oscar,Montanari Mauro,Greco Maria Teresa,Apolone Giovanni

Abstract

Background: medical oncologists and palliative care physicians have different tasks even if they play a similar role when coping with pain of their patients. In spite of this converging goal, oncologists and palliative care therapists can not have the same approach and impact in managing pain. This study analyzes how pain is treated and which outcomes derive from in 1 461 cancer patients separately cared by oncologists or palliative care physicians. Methods: data derive from an observational, multicentre, prospective, longitudinal study carried out in 110 Italian hospitals. After inclusion, the data were recorded weekly for a 28 days period of follow-up. Results: 876 patients (60%) were cared by oncologists and 585 (40%) by palliative care physicians. The two professional categories tended to similarly manage the drugs of WHO analgesic ladder, while rescue and adjuvant therapies were more frequently used by palliative care physicians. Opioids daily dose increased from 68.3 to 92.5 mg/day (Effect size=0.282) among oncologists and from 70.8 to 107.8 mg/day (Effect size=0.402) among palliative care physicians. The switch of opioids was applied in 12.3% and in 19.1% (p=0.1634), respectively. Pain intensity decreased in both groups but more strongly in the palliative context. The full responders patients were 50% in oncology wards and 58.9% in palliative care (p=0.0588). Conclusions: this study indicates how much oncologists and palliative care physicians differ in managing cancer pain. The observational nature of this study reflects the natural and unaffected choice of the professionals. As intrinsic limit the study only describes their behaviors without a stringent comparative evaluation.

Publisher

Milano University Press

Subject

Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health,Community and Home Care,Health Policy,Epidemiology

Cited by 2 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3