Differences in Pain Intensity and Quality by Pain Pattern in Outpatients with Cancer

2.50
Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/10755/161201
Type:
Presentation
Title:
Differences in Pain Intensity and Quality by Pain Pattern in Outpatients with Cancer
Abstract:
Differences in Pain Intensity and Quality by Pain Pattern in Outpatients with Cancer
Conference Sponsor:Midwest Nursing Research Society
Conference Year:2009
Author:Ngamkham, Srisuda
P.I. Institution Name:College of Nursing, University of Illinois at Chicago
Title:Biobehavioral Health Science
Contact Address:845 South Damen Avenue, Room 1120, Chicago, IL, 60612, USA
Contact Telephone:312-355-1913
Co-Authors:S. Ngamkham, D.J. Wilkie, Biobehavioral Health Science, College of Nursing, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL;
Problem: Pain pattern data are important for appropriate timing of pain interventions, but researchers have studied less the temporal aspects of cancer pain than pain intensity, and quality parameters. Aim: We aimed to examine differences in pain intensity and quality by pain pattern groups in patients with cancer receiving outpatient care. Methods: We conducted a comparative, secondary data analysis of data collected from 1994-2007 for 762 outpatients with cancer (60% male, mean age 56.3 plus or minus 12.7 yr, 80% Caucasian). The patients had completed the McGill Pain Questionnaire to measure pain quality and pattern (P) groups (P1 to P7) and a 0 to 10 scale to measure pain intensity. Findings: Pain patterns were: P1 (27%) only constant, P 2 (23%) only intermittent, P3 (8%) only transient, P4 (12%) constant/intermittent, P5 (4%) constant/transient, P6 (18%) intermittent/transient, and P7 (8%) constant/intermittent/transient. Differences in worst pain intensity by pattern groups were statistically significant [F (6, 755) = 21, p<0.05]. Host-hoc pairwise comparisons indicated that patients with P1 (6.2 plus or minus 2.7), P4 (6.9 plus or minus 2.7), and P7 (6.9 plus or minus 2.3) reported statistically higher worst pain mean scores than patients with P2 (5.0plus or minus 2.8), P3 (2.8 plus or minus 2.8), and P6 (4.8 plus or minus 2.8). Differences in pain quality by pattern groups were statistically significant [F (6, 755) PRI-S=17, PRI-A=9, PRI-E=11, PRI-M=18, PRI-T=20, NWC=19, p<0.05]. Host-hoc pairwise comparisons indicated that patients with P7 reported significantly higher PRI-S, PRI-T, NWC means scores (17.5 plus or minus 7.8/31.5 plus or minus 16.3/11.6 plus or minus 4.8, respectively) than patients with P1 (11.8plus or minus 7.5/24.1 plus or minus 14.0/8.0 plus or minus 4.2), P2 (8.7 plus or minus 7.2/14.8 plus or minus 12.3/5.9 plus or minus 4.4), P3 (7.0 plus or minus 6.1/12.3 plus or minus 10.6/5.4 plus or minus 3.6), P4 (13.3 plus or minus 6.8/24.1 plus or minus 12.1/9.1 plus or minus 3.7) and P6 (10.2 plus or minus 7.6/16.7 plus or minus 12.8/7.0 plus or minus 4.5, respectively). Conclusions: Using pain pattern groups in clinical practice may help clinicians to understand changes in pain intensity and quality in cancer patients and thereby to provide more effective pain management.
Repository Posting Date:
26-Oct-2011
Date of Publication:
17-Oct-2011
Sponsors:
Midwest Nursing Research Society

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.typePresentationen_GB
dc.titleDifferences in Pain Intensity and Quality by Pain Pattern in Outpatients with Canceren_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10755/161201-
dc.description.abstract<table><tr><td colspan="2" class="item-title">Differences in Pain Intensity and Quality by Pain Pattern in Outpatients with Cancer</td></tr><tr class="item-sponsor"><td class="label">Conference Sponsor:</td><td class="value">Midwest Nursing Research Society</td></tr><tr class="item-year"><td class="label">Conference Year:</td><td class="value">2009</td></tr><tr class="item-author"><td class="label">Author:</td><td class="value">Ngamkham, Srisuda</td></tr><tr class="item-institute"><td class="label">P.I. Institution Name:</td><td class="value">College of Nursing, University of Illinois at Chicago</td></tr><tr class="item-author-title"><td class="label">Title:</td><td class="value">Biobehavioral Health Science</td></tr><tr class="item-address"><td class="label">Contact Address:</td><td class="value">845 South Damen Avenue, Room 1120, Chicago, IL, 60612, USA</td></tr><tr class="item-phone"><td class="label">Contact Telephone:</td><td class="value">312-355-1913</td></tr><tr class="item-email"><td class="label">Email:</td><td class="value">sngamk2@uic.edu</td></tr><tr class="item-co-authors"><td class="label">Co-Authors:</td><td class="value">S. Ngamkham, D.J. Wilkie, Biobehavioral Health Science, College of Nursing, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL;</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="item-abstract">Problem: Pain pattern data are important for appropriate timing of pain interventions, but researchers have studied less the temporal aspects of cancer pain than pain intensity, and quality parameters. Aim: We aimed to examine differences in pain intensity and quality by pain pattern groups in patients with cancer receiving outpatient care. Methods: We conducted a comparative, secondary data analysis of data collected from 1994-2007 for 762 outpatients with cancer (60% male, mean age 56.3 plus or minus 12.7 yr, 80% Caucasian). The patients had completed the McGill Pain Questionnaire to measure pain quality and pattern (P) groups (P1 to P7) and a 0 to 10 scale to measure pain intensity. Findings: Pain patterns were: P1 (27%) only constant, P 2 (23%) only intermittent, P3 (8%) only transient, P4 (12%) constant/intermittent, P5 (4%) constant/transient, P6 (18%) intermittent/transient, and P7 (8%) constant/intermittent/transient. Differences in worst pain intensity by pattern groups were statistically significant [F (6, 755) = 21, p&lt;0.05]. Host-hoc pairwise comparisons indicated that patients with P1 (6.2 plus or minus 2.7), P4 (6.9 plus or minus 2.7), and P7 (6.9 plus or minus 2.3) reported statistically higher worst pain mean scores than patients with P2 (5.0plus or minus 2.8), P3 (2.8 plus or minus 2.8), and P6 (4.8 plus or minus 2.8). Differences in pain quality by pattern groups were statistically significant [F (6, 755) PRI-S=17, PRI-A=9, PRI-E=11, PRI-M=18, PRI-T=20, NWC=19, p&lt;0.05]. Host-hoc pairwise comparisons indicated that patients with P7 reported significantly higher PRI-S, PRI-T, NWC means scores (17.5 plus or minus 7.8/31.5 plus or minus 16.3/11.6 plus or minus 4.8, respectively) than patients with P1 (11.8plus or minus 7.5/24.1 plus or minus 14.0/8.0 plus or minus 4.2), P2 (8.7 plus or minus 7.2/14.8 plus or minus 12.3/5.9 plus or minus 4.4), P3 (7.0 plus or minus 6.1/12.3 plus or minus 10.6/5.4 plus or minus 3.6), P4 (13.3 plus or minus 6.8/24.1 plus or minus 12.1/9.1 plus or minus 3.7) and P6 (10.2 plus or minus 7.6/16.7 plus or minus 12.8/7.0 plus or minus 4.5, respectively). Conclusions: Using pain pattern groups in clinical practice may help clinicians to understand changes in pain intensity and quality in cancer patients and thereby to provide more effective pain management.</td></tr></table>en_GB
dc.date.available2011-10-26T23:17:32Z-
dc.date.issued2011-10-17en_GB
dc.date.accessioned2011-10-26T23:17:32Z-
dc.description.sponsorshipMidwest Nursing Research Societyen_GB
All Items in this repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.