scholarly journals Feasibility And Acceptability of Virtual Reality for Cancer Pain in People Receiving Palliative Care: A Randomised Cross-Over Study

Author(s):  
Philip Austin ◽  
Philip Siddall ◽  
Melanie Lovell

Abstract ContextCancer pain is common and frequently undertreated; the development of innovative therapeutic options is needed. Objectives To determine the feasibility and preliminary effectiveness for larger randomised controlled trials of 3D head-mounted (HMD) virtual reality (VR) compared with 2D screens for managing cancer pain in adults.MethodsThirteen people receiving palliative and supportive care participated in a single-session randomised cross-over trial, after which they completed a qualitative semi-structured interview. We also compared the effects of 3D HMD VR and 2D screen applications on cancer pain intensity and levels of perceived presence. Feasibility was assessed with recruitment, completion rates and time required to recruit target sample. ResultsAlthough recruitment was slow, completion rate was high (93%). Participants reported the intervention was acceptable and caused few side-effects. Although participants reported significantly reduced cancer pain intensity after 3D HMD VR (1.9 ± 1.8, P=.003) and 2D screen applications (1.5 ± 1.6, P = .007), no significant differences were found between interventions (-.38 ± 1.2, 95% CI: -1.1-.29, P=.23). Participants reported significantly higher levels of presence with the 3D HMD VR compared to 2D screen (60.7 ± SD 12.4 versus 34.3 ± SD 17.1, mean 95% CI: 16.4-40.7, P=.001). Increased presence was associated with significantly lower pain intensity (mean 95% CI: -.04- -0.01, P = 0.02). ConclusionsWe conclude that using HMD VR in palliative care pain settings is feasible and acceptable. In addition, virtual experiences provide relief of cancer pain. Further research is required to confirm the analgesic effects of VR in larger samples against appropriate control groups.

2021 ◽  
pp. bmjspcare-2020-002638
Author(s):  
Juan Yang ◽  
Dietlind L Wahner-Roedler ◽  
Xuan Zhou ◽  
Lesley A Johnson ◽  
Alex Do ◽  
...  

BackgroundPain is one of the most common and problematic symptoms encountered by patients with cancer. Due to the multifactorial aetiology, pain management of these patients frequently requires multidisciplinary interventions including conventional support and specialty palliative care. Acupuncture has been identified as a possible adjunctive therapy for symptom management in cancer pain, and there is currently no systematic review focused solely on the evidence of acupuncture on cancer pain in palliative care.ObjectiveTo critically analyse currently available publications regarding the use of acupuncture for pain management among patients with cancer in palliative care settings.MethodsMultiple academic databases were searched from inception to 29 October 2020. Randomised controlled trials involving acupuncture in palliative care for treatment of cancer-related pain were synthesised. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers, and methodological quality of each included study was assessed using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) 2011 Levels of Evidence.ResultsFive studies (n=189) were included in this systematic review. Results indicated a favourable effect of acupuncture on pain relief in palliative care for patients with cancer. According to OCEBM 2011 Levels of Evidence, they were level 2 in one case (20%), level 3 in two cases (40%) and level 4 in the remaining (40%). Low-level evidence adversely affects the reliability of findings.ConclusionsAcupuncture may be an effective and safe treatment associated with pain reduction in the palliative care of patients with cancer. Further high-quality, adequately powered studies are needed in the future.


1996 ◽  
Vol 14 (5) ◽  
pp. 1713-1717 ◽  
Author(s):  
E Bruera ◽  
P Sloan ◽  
B Mount ◽  
J Scott ◽  
M Suarez-Almazor

PURPOSE To evaluate the safety and efficacy of a new slow-release preparation of hydromorphone (SRH) in the treatment of cancer pain. PATIENTS AND METHODS Ninety-five adult patients from three Canadian Palliative Care Centers with no evidence of mental impairment received treatment for cancer pain with an oral opioid analgesic. After informed consent was obtained, patients underwent titration to a stable dose of immediate-release hydromorphone (IRH) for 48 hours, and were then randomized to receive IRH or SRH for 5 days in a double-blind basis. During day 6, a crossover took place, and patients received the alternate drug for 5 days. Pain intensity was assessed using a visual analog scale (VAS) and ordinal scale (OS). Side effects were assessed using VAS. Patients and investigators made a blinded global rating of efficacy a blinded final choice between SRH and IRH. RESULTS In 75 assessable patients, pain intensity of the VAS and OS were (mean +/- SD) 27 +/- 21 and 1.3 +/- 0.6 on IRH, versus 29 +/- 21 (P = .13) and 1.3 +/- 0.6 (P = .19) on SRH, respectively. The total number of extra doses of opioids, global rating, and final blinded choice by both patients and investigators were not significantly different between IRH and SRH. Differences in side effects were not significant. CONCLUSION Our findings suggest that SRH is as safe and effective as IRH in the treatment of cancer pain.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jasmine T. Ho ◽  
Peter Krummenacher ◽  
Marte Roel Lesur ◽  
Bigna Lenggenhager

AbstractPain represents an embodied process, wherein inferences are not only drawn from sensory inputs, but also from bodily states. Previous research has demonstrated that a placebo administered to an embodied rubber hand can effectively induce analgesia, providing first evidence that placebos can work even when applied to temporarily embodied, artificial body parts. Using a heat pain paradigm, the present study investigates placebo analgesia and pain perception during virtual embodiment. We examined whether a virtual placebo (a sham heat protective glove) can successfully induce analgesia, even when administered to a virtual body. The analgesic efficacy of the virtual placebo to the real hand (augmented reality setting) or virtual hand (virtual reality setting) was compared to a physical placebo administered to the own, physical body (physical reality setting). Furthermore, pain perception and subjective embodiment were compared between settings. Healthy participants (n=48) were assigned to either an analgesia-expectation or control-expectation group, where subjective and objective pain was measured at pre- and post-intervention time points. Results evinced that pre-intervention pain intensity was lower in the virtual reality setting, and that participants in the analgesia-expectation condition, after the intervention, exhibited significantly higher pain thresholds, and lower pain intensity and unpleasantness ratings than control-expectation participants, independent of the setting. Our findings evince that a virtual placebo can elicit placebo analgesia comparable to that of a physical placebo, and that administration of a placebo does not necessitate physical bodily interaction to produce analgesic responses, which might pave the way for effective new non-pharmacological approach for pain management.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vanessa A. Olbrecht ◽  
Keith T O'Conor ◽  
Sara E Williams ◽  
Chloe O Boehmer ◽  
Gilbert W Marchant ◽  
...  

Objective: Virtual reality (VR) is a promising method to manage pain. Distraction-based VR (VR-D) is thought to reduce pain by redirecting attention. While VR-D can reduce pain associated with acutely painful procedures, it is unclear if VR-D can reduce pain after surgery. We assessed the ability of a single VR-D session to decrease acute postoperative pain and anxiety and explored if pain catastrophizing and anxiety sensitivity influenced the ability of VR-D to reduce these outcomes in children following surgery. Design: Single-center, prospective, pilot study Setting: Cincinnati Childrens Hospital Medical Center (CCHMC) Subjects: 50 children/adolescents (age 7-21 years) with postoperative pain followed by the Acute Pain Service Methods: Patients received a single VR-D session following surgery. Prior to the VR-D session, patients completed pain catastrophizing (PCS-C) and anxiety sensitivity (CASI) questionnaires. Primary outcome consisted of changes in pain intensity following VR-D (immediately, 15, and 30 minutes). Secondary outcomes included changes in pain unpleasantness and anxiety. Results: VR-D decreased pain intensity immediately and 15-minutes after VR-D. Reductions in pain unpleasantness were observed up to 30 minutes following VR-D. Anxiety was also reduced immediately and at 15-minutes following VR-D. While patients with higher pain catastrophizing had higher baseline pain intensity and unpleasantness, they did not show larger pain reductions following VR-D compared to those with lower pain catastrophizing. Conclusions: VR-D is beneficial in transiently reducing pain intensity, unpleasantness, and anxiety in children with acute postoperative pain. This study informs design of larger, controlled study assessing VR-D for acute postoperative pain and anxiety.


2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (15) ◽  
pp. 1-92
Author(s):  
Michael I Bennett ◽  
Matthew J Allsop ◽  
Peter Allen ◽  
Christine Allmark ◽  
Bridgette M Bewick ◽  
...  

Background Each year in England and Wales, 150,000 people die from cancer, of whom 110,000 will suffer from cancer pain. Research highlights that cancer pain remains common, severe and undertreated, and may lead to hospital admissions. Objective To develop and evaluate pain self-management interventions for community-based patients with advanced cancer. Design A programme of mixed-methods intervention development work leading to a pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial of a multicomponent intervention for pain management compared with usual care, including an assessment of cost-effectiveness. Participants Patients, including those with metastatic solid cancer (histological, cytological or radiological evidence) and/or those receiving anti-cancer therapy with palliative intent, and health professionals involved in the delivery of community-based palliative care. Setting For the randomised controlled trial, patients were recruited from oncology outpatient clinics and were randomly allocated to intervention or control and followed up at home. Interventions The Supported Self-Management intervention comprised an educational component called Tackling Cancer Pain, and an eHealth component for routine pain assessment and monitoring called PainCheck. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was pain severity (measured using the Brief Pain Inventory). The secondary outcomes included pain interference (measured using the Brief Pain Inventory), participants’ pain knowledge and experience, and cost-effectiveness. We estimated costs and health-related quality-of-life outcomes using decision modelling and a separate within-trial economic analysis. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios per quality-adjusted life-year for the trial period. Results Work package 1 – We found barriers to and variation in the co-ordination of advanced cancer care by oncology and primary care professionals. We identified that the median time between referral to palliative care services and death for 42,758 patients in the UK was 48 days. We identified key components for self-management and developed and tested our Tackling Cancer Pain resource for acceptability. Work package 2 – Patients with advanced cancer and their health professionals recognised the benefits of an electronic system to monitor pain, but had reservations about how such a system might work in practice. We developed and tested a prototype PainCheck system. Work package 3 – We found that strong opioids were prescribed for 48% of patients in the last year of life at a median of 9 weeks before death. We delivered Medicines Use Reviews to patients, in which many medicines-related problems were identified. Work package 4 – A total of 161 oncology outpatients were randomised in our clinical trial, receiving either supported self-management (n = 80) or usual care (n = 81); their median survival from randomisation was 53 weeks. Primary and sensitivity analyses found no significant treatment differences for the primary outcome or for other secondary outcomes of pain severity or health-related quality of life. The literature-based decision modelling indicated that information and feedback interventions similar to the supported self-management intervention could be cost-effective. This model was not used to extrapolate the outcomes of the trial over a longer time horizon because the statistical analysis of the trial data found no difference between the trial arms in terms of the primary outcome measure (pain severity). The within-trial economic evaluation base-case analysis found that supported self-management reduced costs by £587 and yielded marginally higher quality-adjusted life-years (0.0018) than usual care. However, the difference in quality-adjusted life-years between the two trial arms was negligible and this was not in line with the decision model that had been developed. Our process evaluation found low fidelity of the interventions delivered by clinical professionals. Limitations In the randomised controlled trial, the low fidelity of the interventions and the challenge of the study design, which forced the usual-care arm to have earlier access to palliative care services, might explain the lack of observed benefit. Overall, 71% of participants returned outcome data at 6 or 12 weeks and so we used administrative data to estimate costs. Our decision model did not include the negative trial results from our randomised controlled trial and, therefore, may overestimate the likelihood of cost-effectiveness. Conclusions Our programme of research has revealed new insights into how patients with advanced cancer manage their pain and the challenges faced by health professionals in identifying those who need more help. Our clinical trial failed to show an added benefit of our interventions to enhance existing community palliative care support, although both the decision model and the economic evaluation of the trial indicated that supported self-management could result in lower health-care costs. Future work There is a need for further research to (1) understand and facilitate triggers that prompt earlier integration of palliative care and pain management within oncology services; (2) determine the optimal timing of technologies for self-management; and (3) examine prescriber and patient behaviour to achieve the earlier initiation and use of strong opioid treatment. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN18281271. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 9, No. 15. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.


2013 ◽  
Vol 16 (5) ◽  
pp. 516-523 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cheryl L. Nekolaichuk ◽  
Robin L. Fainsinger ◽  
Nina Aass ◽  
Marianne J. Hjermstad ◽  
Anne Kari Knudsen ◽  
...  

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. e025692 ◽  
Author(s):  
Corita R Grudzen ◽  
Deborah J Shim ◽  
Abigail M Schmucker ◽  
Jeanne Cho ◽  
Keith S Goldfeld

IntroductionEmergency department (ED)-initiated palliative care has been shown to improve patient-centred outcomes in older adults with serious, life-limiting illnesses. However, the optimal modality for providing such interventions is unknown. This study aims to compare nurse-led telephonic case management to specialty outpatient palliative care for older adults with serious, life-limiting illness on: (1) quality of life in patients; (2) healthcare utilisation; (3) loneliness and symptom burden and (4) caregiver strain, caregiver quality of life and bereavement.Methods and analysisThis is a protocol for a pragmatic, multicentre, parallel, two-arm randomised controlled trial in ED patients comparing two established models of palliative care: nurse-led telephonic case management and specialty, outpatient palliative care. We will enrol 1350 patients aged 50+ years and 675 of their caregivers across nine EDs. Eligible patients: (1) have advanced cancer (metastatic solid tumour) or end-stage organ failure (New York Heart Association class III or IV heart failure, end-stage renal disease with glomerular filtration rate <15 mL/min/m2, or global initiative for chronic obstructive lung disease stage III, IV or oxygen-dependent chronic obstructive pulmonary disease); (2) speak English; (3) are scheduled for ED discharge or observation status; (4) reside locally; (5) have a working telephone and (6) are insured. Patients will be excluded if they: (1) have dementia; (2) have received hospice care or two or more palliative care visits in the last 6 months or (3) reside in a long-term care facility. We will use patient-level block randomisation, stratified by ED site and disease. Effectiveness will be compared by measuring the impact of each intervention on the specified outcomes. The primary outcome will measure change in patient quality of life.Ethics and disseminationInstitutional Review Board approval was obtained at all study sites. Trial results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.Trial registration numberNCT03325985; Pre-results.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document