Faculty of Health Disciplines, Athabasca University, Athabasca, Alberta, Canada; Faculty of Nursing, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Faculty of Nursing, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2022 Sep;23(9):1507-1516.e0. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2022.04.008. Epub 2022 May 18.
Pain, a complex subjective experience, is common in care home residents. Despite advances in pain management, optimal pain control remains a challenge. In this updated systematic review, we examined effectiveness of interventions for treating chronic pain in care home residents.
A Cochrane-style systematic review and meta-analysis using PRISMA guidelines.
Randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials and intervention studies included care home residents aged ≥60 years receiving interventions to reduce chronic pain.
Six databases were searched to identify relevant studies. After duplicate removal, articles were screened by title and abstract. Full-text articles were reviewed and included if they implemented a pain management intervention and measured pain with a standardized quantitative pain scale. Meta-analyses calculated standardized mean differences (SMDs) using random-effect models. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias Tool 2.0.
We included 42 trials in the meta-analysis and described 13 more studies narratively. Studies included 26 nondrug alternative treatments, 8 education interventions, 7 system modifications, 3 nonanalgesic drug treatments, 2 analgesic treatments, and 9 combined interventions. Pooled results at trial completion revealed that, except for nonanalgesic drugs and health system modification interventions, all interventions were at least moderately effective in reducing pain. Analgesic treatments (SMD -0.80; 95% CI -1.47 to -0.12; P = .02) showed the greatest treatment effect, followed by nondrug alternative treatments (SMD -0.70; 95% CI -0.95 to -0.45; P < .001), combined interventions (SMD -0.37; 95% CI -0.60 to -0.13; P = .002), and education interventions (SMD -0.31; 95% CI -0.48 to -0.15; P < .001).
Our findings suggest that analgesic drugs and nondrug alternative pain management strategies are the most effective in reducing pain among care home residents. Clinicians should also consider implementing nondrug alternative therapies in care homes, rather than relying solely on analgesic drug options.
疼痛是一种复杂的主观体验,在养老院居民中很常见。尽管在疼痛管理方面取得了进展,但仍难以实现最佳的疼痛控制。在本次更新的系统评价中,我们研究了治疗养老院居民慢性疼痛的干预措施的效果。
采用 PRISMA 指南的 Cochrane 式系统评价和荟萃分析。
纳入年龄≥60 岁的养老院居民,他们接受了减少慢性疼痛的干预措施,包括随机和非随机对照试验和干预研究。
检索了 6 个数据库以确定相关研究。在去除重复项后,根据标题和摘要筛选文章。如果实施了疼痛管理干预措施并使用标准化的定量疼痛量表测量了疼痛,则对全文进行了回顾并纳入。使用随机效应模型计算标准化均数差(SMD)。使用 Cochrane 风险偏倚工具 2.0 评估风险偏倚。
我们将 42 项试验纳入荟萃分析,并以叙述性方式描述了另外 13 项研究。这些研究包括 26 种非药物替代治疗、8 种教育干预、7 种系统修改、3 种非阿片类药物治疗、2 种阿片类药物治疗和 9 种联合干预。试验完成时的汇总结果表明,除非阿片类药物和卫生系统修改干预外,所有干预措施在减轻疼痛方面至少是中度有效的。阿片类药物治疗(SMD-0.80;95%CI-1.47 至-0.12;P=0.02)显示出最大的治疗效果,其次是非药物替代治疗(SMD-0.70;95%CI-0.95 至-0.45;P<0.001)、联合干预(SMD-0.37;95%CI-0.60 至-0.13;P=0.002)和教育干预(SMD-0.31;95%CI-0.48 至-0.15;P<0.001)。
我们的研究结果表明,阿片类药物和非药物疼痛管理策略在减轻养老院居民疼痛方面最有效。临床医生还应考虑在养老院实施非药物替代疗法,而不仅仅依赖于阿片类药物选择。