4.5 Article

Opioid Availability and Palliative Care in Nepal: Influence of an International Pain Policy Fellowship

期刊

JOURNAL OF PAIN AND SYMPTOM MANAGEMENT
卷 49, 期 1, 页码 111-117

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2014.02.011

关键词

Morphine; Nepal; opioid availability; International Pain Policy Fellowship; Low- and middle-income countries

资金

  1. LIVESTRONG Foundation
  2. Open Society Foundation
  3. Purdue Pharma

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Globally, cancer incidence and mortality are increasing, and most of the burden is shifting to low-and middle-income countries (LMICs), where patients often present with late-stage disease and severe pain. Unfortunately, LMICs also face a disproportionate lack of access to pain-relieving medicines such as morphine, despite the medical and scientific literature that shows morphine to be effective to treat moderate and severe cancer pain. In 2008, an oncologist from Nepal, one of the poorest countries in the world, was selected to participate in the International Pain Policy Fellowship, a program to assist LMICs, to improve patient access to pain medicines. Following the World Health Organization public health model for development of pain relief and palliative care, the Fellow, working with colleagues and mentors, has achieved initial successes: three forms of oral morphine (syrup, immediate-release tablets, and sustained-release tablets) are now manufactured in the country; health-care practitioners are receiving training in the use of opioids for pain relief; and a new national palliative care association has developed a palliative care training curriculum. However, long-term implementation efforts, funding, and technical assistance by governments, philanthropic organizations, and international partners are necessary to ensure that pain relief and palliative care become accessible by all in need in Nepal and other LMICs. (C) 2015 American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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