4.4 Article

Pain and aberrant drug-related behaviors in medically ill patients with and without histories of substance abuse

期刊

CLINICAL JOURNAL OF PAIN
卷 22, 期 2, 页码 173-181

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.ajp.0000161525.48245.aa

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: This study evaluated the prevalence and correlates of aberrant drug-taking behaviors in two populations: patients with HIV-related pain and a history of substance abuse (n = 73) and patients with cancer pain and no history of substance abuse (n = 100). Methods: All patients completed a Drug-Taking Behaviors Interview, the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI), Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale (MSAS), and the Marlowe Crowne Social Desirability Scale (MCSDS). The Pain Management Index was calculated to assess the adequacy of opioid prescribing. Results: The cancer sample comprised 38 men and 62 women, and the AIDS sample comprised 63 men and 10 women. Patients with AIDS-related pain had higher global distress on the MSAS (F (1, 170) = 20.05, P < 0.001), greater pain-related interference in their daily functioning on the BPI (F-1,F- (161) = 22.87, P < 0.001), and a lower percentage of relief from their current medications (F-1,F- (156) - 76.14, P < 0.001). AIDS patients also reported more than twice as many examples of aberrant drug-related behaviors per patient (mean = 6.14, SD = 4.60) as the cancer patients (mean = 1.42, SD = 1.91). Conclusion: These data suggest that AIDS patients with histories of substance abuse receiving opioid therapy are more symptomatic, have more distress, experience more interference from residual pain, and engage in more problematic drug-related behaviors than patients with no history of drug abuse receiving opioids for cancer pain. Treatment of substance abusers with pain requires skills that complement best practices in opioid prescribing. Better approaches to the long-term treatment of these populations are needed.

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

4.4
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