Optimal patient education for cancer pain: A systematic review and theory-based meta-analysis

N. Marie, T. Luckett, Patricia M Davidson, M. Lovell, S. Lal

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: Previous systematic reviews have found patient education to be moderately efficacious in decreasing the intensity of cancer pain, but variation in results warrants analysis aimed at identifying which strategies are optimal. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken using a theory-based approach to classifying and comparing educational interventions for cancer pain. The reference lists of previous reviews and MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and CENTRAL were searched in May 2012. Studies had to be published in a peer-reviewed English language journal and compare the effect on cancer pain intensity of education with usual care. Meta-analyses used standardized effect sizes (ES) and a random effects model. Subgroup analyses compared intervention components categorized using the Michie et al. (Implement Sci 6:42, 2011) capability, opportunity, and motivation behavior (COM-B) model. Results: Fifteen randomized controlled trials met the criteria. As expected, meta-analysis identified a small-moderate ES favoring education versus usual care (ES, 0.27 [-0.47, -0.07]; P = 0.007) with substantial heterogeneity (IÂ= 71 %). Subgroup analyses based on the taxonomy found that interventions using "enablement" were efficacious (ES, 0.35 [-0.63, -0.08]; P = 0.01), whereas those lacking this component were not (ES, 0.18 [-0.46, 0.10]; P = 0.20). However, the subgroup effect was nonsignificant (P = 0.39), and heterogeneity was not reduced. Factoring in the variable of individualized versus non-individualized influenced neither efficacy nor heterogeneity. Conclusions: The current meta-analysis follows a trend in using theory to understand the mechanisms of complex interventions. We suggest that future efforts focus on interventions that target patient self-efficacy. Authors are encouraged to report comprehensive details of interventions and methods to inform synthesis, replication, and refinement.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)3529-3537
Number of pages9
JournalSupportive Care in Cancer
Volume21
Issue number12
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 2013
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Patient Education
Meta-Analysis
Education
Self Efficacy
MEDLINE
Motivation
Language
Randomized Controlled Trials
Cancer Pain

Keywords

  • Cancer pain
  • COM-B model
  • Meta-analysis

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology

Cite this

Optimal patient education for cancer pain : A systematic review and theory-based meta-analysis. / Marie, N.; Luckett, T.; Davidson, Patricia M; Lovell, M.; Lal, S.

In: Supportive Care in Cancer, Vol. 21, No. 12, 12.2013, p. 3529-3537.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Marie, N. ; Luckett, T. ; Davidson, Patricia M ; Lovell, M. ; Lal, S. / Optimal patient education for cancer pain : A systematic review and theory-based meta-analysis. In: Supportive Care in Cancer. 2013 ; Vol. 21, No. 12. pp. 3529-3537.
@article{561f64c0244340108331f4ee9a1978cd,
title = "Optimal patient education for cancer pain: A systematic review and theory-based meta-analysis",
abstract = "Purpose: Previous systematic reviews have found patient education to be moderately efficacious in decreasing the intensity of cancer pain, but variation in results warrants analysis aimed at identifying which strategies are optimal. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken using a theory-based approach to classifying and comparing educational interventions for cancer pain. The reference lists of previous reviews and MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and CENTRAL were searched in May 2012. Studies had to be published in a peer-reviewed English language journal and compare the effect on cancer pain intensity of education with usual care. Meta-analyses used standardized effect sizes (ES) and a random effects model. Subgroup analyses compared intervention components categorized using the Michie et al. (Implement Sci 6:42, 2011) capability, opportunity, and motivation behavior (COM-B) model. Results: Fifteen randomized controlled trials met the criteria. As expected, meta-analysis identified a small-moderate ES favoring education versus usual care (ES, 0.27 [-0.47, -0.07]; P = 0.007) with substantial heterogeneity (I{\^A}= 71 {\%}). Subgroup analyses based on the taxonomy found that interventions using {"}enablement{"} were efficacious (ES, 0.35 [-0.63, -0.08]; P = 0.01), whereas those lacking this component were not (ES, 0.18 [-0.46, 0.10]; P = 0.20). However, the subgroup effect was nonsignificant (P = 0.39), and heterogeneity was not reduced. Factoring in the variable of individualized versus non-individualized influenced neither efficacy nor heterogeneity. Conclusions: The current meta-analysis follows a trend in using theory to understand the mechanisms of complex interventions. We suggest that future efforts focus on interventions that target patient self-efficacy. Authors are encouraged to report comprehensive details of interventions and methods to inform synthesis, replication, and refinement.",
keywords = "Cancer pain, COM-B model, Meta-analysis",
author = "N. Marie and T. Luckett and Davidson, {Patricia M} and M. Lovell and S. Lal",
year = "2013",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1007/s00520-013-1995-0",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "21",
pages = "3529--3537",
journal = "Supportive Care in Cancer",
issn = "0941-4355",
publisher = "Springer Verlag",
number = "12",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Optimal patient education for cancer pain

T2 - A systematic review and theory-based meta-analysis

AU - Marie, N.

AU - Luckett, T.

AU - Davidson, Patricia M

AU - Lovell, M.

AU - Lal, S.

PY - 2013/12

Y1 - 2013/12

N2 - Purpose: Previous systematic reviews have found patient education to be moderately efficacious in decreasing the intensity of cancer pain, but variation in results warrants analysis aimed at identifying which strategies are optimal. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken using a theory-based approach to classifying and comparing educational interventions for cancer pain. The reference lists of previous reviews and MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and CENTRAL were searched in May 2012. Studies had to be published in a peer-reviewed English language journal and compare the effect on cancer pain intensity of education with usual care. Meta-analyses used standardized effect sizes (ES) and a random effects model. Subgroup analyses compared intervention components categorized using the Michie et al. (Implement Sci 6:42, 2011) capability, opportunity, and motivation behavior (COM-B) model. Results: Fifteen randomized controlled trials met the criteria. As expected, meta-analysis identified a small-moderate ES favoring education versus usual care (ES, 0.27 [-0.47, -0.07]; P = 0.007) with substantial heterogeneity (IÂ= 71 %). Subgroup analyses based on the taxonomy found that interventions using "enablement" were efficacious (ES, 0.35 [-0.63, -0.08]; P = 0.01), whereas those lacking this component were not (ES, 0.18 [-0.46, 0.10]; P = 0.20). However, the subgroup effect was nonsignificant (P = 0.39), and heterogeneity was not reduced. Factoring in the variable of individualized versus non-individualized influenced neither efficacy nor heterogeneity. Conclusions: The current meta-analysis follows a trend in using theory to understand the mechanisms of complex interventions. We suggest that future efforts focus on interventions that target patient self-efficacy. Authors are encouraged to report comprehensive details of interventions and methods to inform synthesis, replication, and refinement.

AB - Purpose: Previous systematic reviews have found patient education to be moderately efficacious in decreasing the intensity of cancer pain, but variation in results warrants analysis aimed at identifying which strategies are optimal. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken using a theory-based approach to classifying and comparing educational interventions for cancer pain. The reference lists of previous reviews and MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and CENTRAL were searched in May 2012. Studies had to be published in a peer-reviewed English language journal and compare the effect on cancer pain intensity of education with usual care. Meta-analyses used standardized effect sizes (ES) and a random effects model. Subgroup analyses compared intervention components categorized using the Michie et al. (Implement Sci 6:42, 2011) capability, opportunity, and motivation behavior (COM-B) model. Results: Fifteen randomized controlled trials met the criteria. As expected, meta-analysis identified a small-moderate ES favoring education versus usual care (ES, 0.27 [-0.47, -0.07]; P = 0.007) with substantial heterogeneity (IÂ= 71 %). Subgroup analyses based on the taxonomy found that interventions using "enablement" were efficacious (ES, 0.35 [-0.63, -0.08]; P = 0.01), whereas those lacking this component were not (ES, 0.18 [-0.46, 0.10]; P = 0.20). However, the subgroup effect was nonsignificant (P = 0.39), and heterogeneity was not reduced. Factoring in the variable of individualized versus non-individualized influenced neither efficacy nor heterogeneity. Conclusions: The current meta-analysis follows a trend in using theory to understand the mechanisms of complex interventions. We suggest that future efforts focus on interventions that target patient self-efficacy. Authors are encouraged to report comprehensive details of interventions and methods to inform synthesis, replication, and refinement.

KW - Cancer pain

KW - COM-B model

KW - Meta-analysis

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84889008098&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84889008098&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00520-013-1995-0

DO - 10.1007/s00520-013-1995-0

M3 - Article

C2 - 24085650

AN - SCOPUS:84889008098

VL - 21

SP - 3529

EP - 3537

JO - Supportive Care in Cancer

JF - Supportive Care in Cancer

SN - 0941-4355

IS - 12

ER -