Palliative Care Department, HammondCare, Greenwich, Australia.
Northern Clinical School, Sydney Medical School, Sydney, Australia.
JAMA Netw Open. 2022 Feb 1;5(2):e220060. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.0060.
An evidence-practice gap exists for cancer pain management, and cancer pain remains prevalent and disabling.
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.
Guideline implementation strategies at the cluster, health professional, and patient levels introduced with the support of a clinical champion.
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.
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.
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.
癌症疼痛管理存在证据-实践差距,且癌症疼痛仍然普遍存在且具有致残性。
评估 3 种癌症疼痛指南实施策略的能力,以改善接受肿瘤学和姑息治疗门诊服务的患者的疼痛相关结局。
设计、设置和参与者:这是一项在 2014 年至 2019 年期间进行的实用、阶梯式楔形、集群随机、非盲、临床试验。集群为澳大利亚提供肿瘤学和姑息治疗门诊服务的癌症中心。参与者包括连续队列的患有晚期癌症且疼痛严重程度评分最高为数字评分量表(NRS)上 2 或以上(NRS 评分 2 或以上)的成年门诊患者。数据收集于 2015 年 8 月至 2019 年 5 月。数据分析于 2019 年 7 月至 10 月进行,并于 2021 年 11 月至 12 月重新分析。
在临床冠军的支持下,在集群、卫生专业人员和患者层面上实施指南实施策略。
主要效果测量指标为最初筛选出有中度至重度最严重疼痛(NRS≥5)的参与者中,有 30%或更多改善的比例,改善发生在 1 周后。次要结局包括平均疼痛评分、患者赋权、对干预措施的遵从性以及在第 1、2 和 4 周有疼痛评分 2 或以上的所有参与者的生活质量,并进行了测量。
在 6 个集群中,对 8099 名患者进行了筛选,其中 1564 名符合条件,在对照组(平均[标准差]年龄,64.2[12.1]岁;196 名男性[55%])有 359 名被招募,在干预组(平均[标准差]年龄,63.6[12.7]岁;155 名男性[47%])有 329 名被招募,在基线测量中,两个阶段之间没有显著差异。对照组和干预组的基线最严重疼痛评分的平均值(标准差)分别为 5.0(2.6)和 4.9(2.6)。两组的基线平均疼痛评分均为 3.5(2.1)。对于主要结局,在基线疼痛评分 5 或以上的患者中,有 30%或更多缓解的比例在对照组和干预组中相似(对照组 280 名参与者中有 31 名[11.9%],干预组 264 名参与者中有 30 名[11.8%];比值比,1.12;95%置信区间,0.79-1.60;P=0.51)。两个阶段之间在次要结局方面未发现显著差异。对干预措施的遵从性较低。
一整套实施策略不足以改善癌症相关疼痛门诊患者的疼痛相关结局。需要进一步评估,以确定广泛采用癌症疼痛护理基本要素所需的临床资源。应支持正在进行的质量改进活动,以提高可持续性。