4.2 Article

Barriers to Pain Management among Lithuanian Cancer Patients

期刊

PAIN PRACTICE
卷 10, 期 2, 页码 145-157

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1533-2500.2009.00333.x

关键词

cancer; pain; barriers; patients; Lithuania

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: The objectives of this study are (1) to describe Lithuanian cancer patients' barriers to pain management as well as pain management outcomes, (2) to check the reliability and validity of the questionnaires used in Lithuanian for the first time, and (3) to formulate patient-centered recommendations for better cancer pain management. Methods: Thirty patients from the Pain Clinic of Kaunas University of Medicine Hospital responded to the Lithuanian versions of: (1) Brief Pain Inventory pain scale, (2) Barriers Questionnaire-II, (3) Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, (4) Modified version of the Perceived Involvement in Care Scale, and (5) Medication Adherence Report Scale. Results: The translated questionnaires had fear internal consistency reliability and construct validity. Reported average (standard deviation [SD]) pain intensity among Lithuanian cancer patients was 3.9 (1.30) on a scale 0-10. The mean (SD) scores of anxiety and depression among the surveyed patients were 8.7 (4.86) and 7.5 (5.05) on a scale 0-21, respectively. The percentage of the patients, who reported stopping taking pain medicine because of its side effects, was 33.3%. The biggest patients' concerns were about physiological consequences and harmful effects of opioid use. The average (SD) level of perceived communication among Lithuanian patients was 3.1 (0.95) on a scale 0-5, whereas the average level (SD) of self-reported adherence to pain medication among Lithuanians was 13.0 (3.65) on a scale 4-20. Conclusions: The authors believe, that to improve cancer pain management in Lithuania (1) more attention should be paid to psychological status of patients, (2) patients should be more educated about the need and consequences of opioid use for cancer pain, and (3) adherence to pain management regimens should be improved.

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

4.2
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