Abstract
Abstract
Background
Children and young people are usually given liquid morphine by mouth for breakthrough pain, which can take thirty minutes to work. A faster-acting, quickly absorbed, needle-free pain medicine, that is easy to administer is needed such as transmucosal (sublingual, buccal, intranasal) diamorphine. Research evidence relating to the administration of medication for breakthrough pain in children and young people is limited. This study aims to describe the experiences and preferences of parents and/or children and young people regarding the route of administration of diamorphine, barriers and facilitators comparative to oral morphine, and participation in a randomised controlled trial.
Methods
In-depth, semi-structured interviews with parents and/or children and young people at home or hospital/hospice.
Results
Thirteen interviews with: nine mothers, one father, and three sets of parents jointly. No interviews took place with a child/young person. Most families had experience of the buccal route which was effective in ease of administration and time to control pain. The intranasal route was preferred by parents irrespective of experience. Parents’ willingness for their child to take part in a trial depended on the time commitment, their child’s pain trajectory and the stability of analgesic requirements.
Conclusion
A randomised controlled trial of oral morphine versus transmucosal diamorphine would need to consider trial logistics, especially time commitment. Parents felt that the trial should be introduced initially by the clinical team, with written information from the research team, and sufficient time to ask questions. Patients who had discontinued oral morphine because of side effects, or those with gastrointestinal failure, should be excluded. Maintaining stability in pain management was essential to families, so the timing of the trial is a potential issue.
Funder
Research for Patient Benefit Programme
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference12 articles.
1. Fraser LK, Gibson-Smith D, Jarvis S, Norman P, Parslow RC. Estimating the current and future prevalence of lifelimiting conditions in children in England. Palliat Med. 2021;35(9):1641–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269216320975308.
2. The Association of Paediatric Palliative Medicine Master Formulary 5th edition 2020. https://www.appm.org.uk/guidelines-resources/appm-master-formulary/
3. Jamieson L, Wong IC, Craig F, Christiansen N, Brombley K, Tuleu C, Harrop E. Palliative medicines for children - a new frontier in paediatric research. J Pharm Pharmacol. 2017;69(4):377–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/jphp.12615. Epub 2016 Oct 13 PMID: 27739059.
4. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. End of life care for infants, children and young people: planning and management (NICE Guideline NG61), https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng61/evidence/full-guidancepdf-2728081261 (Acccessed 22/06/20)
5. Lofland J, Lofland H. Analyzing Social Settings: A Guide to Qualitative Observation and Analysis. Belmont CA: Wadsworth; 1995.
Cited by
1 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
1. Morphine;Reactions Weekly;2022-07