4.4 Article

A survey of pain-related hospitalizations, emergency department visits, and physician office visits reported by cancer patients with and without history of breakthrough pain

期刊

JOURNAL OF PAIN
卷 3, 期 1, 页码 38-44

出版社

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE
DOI: 10.1054/jpai.2002.27136

关键词

neoplasm; cancer; costs; pain; breakthrough pain; hospitalizations; emergency department; office visits

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pain is a common problem for cancer patients and can result in substantial medical costs, but little is known about the characteristics of pain that may predict these costs. This study applied telephone survey methodology to investigate the relationship between breakthrough pain (BTP) and the use of medical resources in a cancer population with pain. A nonrandom sample of 1,000 cancer patients was contacted by using standard telephone survey techniques. Eligible patients were questioned about the occurrence of BTP and pain-related hospitalizations, emergency department visits, and physician office visits. Patients who indicated that they had experienced BTP were compared with similar patients who had not experienced BTP by using cost estimations derived from patient reports of health care use. The analysis indicated that BTP patients were more likely to have experienced pain-related hospitalizations and physician office visits. When statistical control was made for patient ratings of the effectiveness of scheduled analgesics, BTP had higher costs associated with pain-related hospitalizations and physician office visits. The total cost of pain-related hospitalizations, emergency visits, and physician office visits was $12,000/yr per BTP patient and $2,400/yr per non-BTP patient. Cancer patients with BTP may sustain higher direct medical costs than patients without BTP Implications and limitations of the study are discussed, and studies that will further clarify the relationship between BTP and medical costs are encouraged. (C) 2002 by the American Pain Society.

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