4.6 Article

Cancer pain management at home (II): does age influence attitudes towards pain and analgesia?

期刊

SUPPORTIVE CARE IN CANCER
卷 17, 期 7, 页码 781-786

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-008-0548-4

关键词

Ageing; Attitudes; Analgesia; Cancer pain; Barriers

资金

  1. Big Lottery Fund [RG/1/010136487]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Older patients experience a higher prevalence of pain, including cancer pain, than other age groups and tend to receive poorer pain management. The reasons for unnecessary suffering resulting from pain among older patients are not well understood. This study aimed to identify barriers to cancer pain management for older patients living at home and to compare these with a younger control group. Patients newly referred to community-based palliative care services were interviewed about their pain and related issues. Data included pain impact (BPI), mood (HAD), health (EuroQol), and barriers to reporting of pain and analgesic use (Barriers Questionnaire). Fifty-eight patients aged 75 or over and 32 people aged 60 or under were interviewed. Both groups reported that beliefs about the use of analgesics was the greatest barrier to effective pain management. Older patients reported that beliefs about the use of analgesics and communicating with medical staff were significantly more important barriers to pain management than for younger patients. Overall, factors such as communication with medical staff and fatalism were ranked lower than barriers related to medication. Younger patients reported significantly greater sleep disturbance due to pain and greater anxiety. Older age appears to influence attitudes towards pain and analgesia. Factors such as poorer knowledge about taking analgesia, reluctance to communicate with medical staff, poorer performance status, and being more likely to live alone suggest that older patients may require greater support in the management of their cancer pain than younger patients. Targeted interventions are needed to test this proposition.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据