European journal of pain : EJP
-
Melittin is the main toxin of honeybee venom. Previously, we have reported that intradermal injection of melittin into the volar aspect of forearm in humans produces a temporary pain and a subsequent sustained increase in the skin temperature due to axon reflex. To clarify the interaction between nociceptive inputs and vascular changes, we studied the influence of noxious stimulation by intradermal melittin on the vasomotor control of the distal extremities in human volunteers. ⋯ The skin temperature in a finger/hand with lower preinjection value increased more markedly in the second phase. Consequently, the individual variation in the peak temperature of the second phase was less pronounced. The initial decrease was interpreted as sympathetic vasoconstrictor reflex induced by noxious stimulation and the later increase as release of sympathetic vasomotor tone.
-
This study describes the development of the German questionnaire FF-STABS (Freiburg Questionnaire--Stages of Chronic Pain Management), which documents the willingness of chronic pain patients to use cognitive-behavioural methods for pain management independently. The newly constructed assessment instrument, modified from a similar instrument developed by Kerns and his colleagues, was administered to a heterogeneous sample of 118 chronic pain patients. ⋯ All scales evidenced sufficient indices of reliability and discriminant validity. Deviations from the original American version and suggestions for future refinements in the new measure are discussed.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical Trial
Improving the quality of pain treatment by a tailored pain education programme for cancer patients in chronic pain.
Educational interventions, aiming to increase patients' knowledge and attitude regarding pain, can affect pain treatment. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of a Pain Education Programme (PEP), on adequacy of pain treatment, and to describe characteristics predicting change in adequacy. The PEP consists of a multi-method approach in which patients are educated about the basic principles regarding pain, instructed how to report pain in a pain diary, how to communicate about pain, and how to contact healthcare providers. ⋯ Variables predicting an improvement in adequacy of pain treatment consisted of the PEP, the APMI score at baseline, patients' level of physical functioning, patients' level of social functioning, the extent of adherence to pain medication, patients' pain knowledge, and the amount of analgesics used. These findings suggest that quality of pain treatment in cancer patients with chronic pain can be enhanced by educating patients about pain and improving active participation in their own pain treatment. The benefit from the PEP, however, decreases slightly over time, pointing at a need for ongoing education.
-
China is still faced with a challenge in cancer pain management. The purposes of this study are to assess the current status of cancer pain management, and physicians' attitudes in China towards cancer pain management. The survey was done in a Chinese general hospital; 427 physicians and 387 cancer pain patients participated. ⋯ The physicians rated the main reason for not using opioid drugs as the strong and difficult to control side-effects. The four main barriers to optimal management of cancer pain were: inadequate pain assessment; excessive state regulation of the prescribing of opioids; inadequate staff knowledge of pain management; and lack of access to powerful analgesics. To conclude: In China, there are some special aspects of cancer pain management, including physicians' concern about using opioid drugs, fear of being unable to manage adverse effects of opioids, and inadequately treated bone pain.
-
The Japanese guidelines for the clinical practice of cancer pain management supported by evidence-based medicine were established by the Japanese Society for Palliative Medicine in 1999 [as their Evidence-based Medicine-supported Cancer Pain Management Guideline ]. To evaluate usefulness of the Guideline for the management of cancer pain, the same questionnaires were addressed to nurses and physicians of enrolled institutions twice. The first survey was conducted before the distribution of the Guideline in July, 1999 and the second was done after the distribution in January, 2000. ⋯ Cancer patients were divided into two groups depending on their stages (conservative or terminal). (1) Morbidity of pain in cancer patients at each stage having some analgesics did not change at each survey period. (2) At the first survey the rate of pain relief in each stage of cancer patients was essentially unchanged from a previous result obtained in 1998. (3) The rate of pain relief shown in the second survey tended to be higher than that shown in the first in both groups of patients. (4) The rate of pain relief with per os morphine was shown to be significantly higher in the second survey than in the first for each group of patients at conservative or terminal stage. (5) The rate of pain relief of patients staying in the ward where the guidance for dosing of morphine had been carried out was 37.5% at the first survey versus 47.9% at the second. (6) The answers from physicians to questions about treatment of cancer pain remained unchanged between the first and the second survey. The usefulness of the Guideline for cancer pain management is partly confirmed by these results. The significance of the Guideline will be totally discussed by comparing its effects on nurses, pharmacists and physicians.