Effects of nurse‐led nonpharmacological pain interventions for patients with cancer: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Purpose The purposes of this study were to review the types of nurse‐led nonpharmacological pain interventions (NPI) offered to cancer patients and/or family caregivers, and to determine a comprehensive and robust estimate of the effect size of nurse‐led NPI for cancer patients on various pain‐relat...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of nursing scholarship 2022-07, Vol.54 (4), p.422-433
Hauptverfasser: Park, Youn Jin, Lee, Myung Kyung
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Purpose The purposes of this study were to review the types of nurse‐led nonpharmacological pain interventions (NPI) offered to cancer patients and/or family caregivers, and to determine a comprehensive and robust estimate of the effect size of nurse‐led NPI for cancer patients on various pain‐related outcomes. Design Systematic review and meta‐analysis. Studies assessing nurse‐led NPIs targeting cancer patients and published between January 2008 and December 2020 were identified by searching multiple literature databases, including MEDLINE®, EMBASE, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, ProQuest Medical Library, and CINAHL®. Methods This review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses guidelines. The selected randomized clinical trials were independently assessed for methodological quality. The effect sizes (ESs) of treatment were presented as standardized mean differences (Hedges’ g) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Findings A meta‐analysis was performed to analyze data from 22 randomized clinical trials. Three types of nurse‐led NPI were offered, mainly to cancer patients but also to some caregivers: music, physical, and psycho‐educational interventions. The dose and duration of nonpharmacological interventions varied widely. The study participants ranged in age from 44.1 to 67.3 years. Meta‐analysis indicated that, although these interventions had small effects in long‐term (g = 0.24, 95% CI: 0.06–0.43, p = 0.011) to medium effects in short‐term (g = 0.43, 95% CI: 0.32–0.53, p 
ISSN:1527-6546
1547-5069
DOI:10.1111/jnu.12750