• Journal of Hospice and Palliative Care
• /
• v.11 no.1
• /
• pp.42-50
• /
• 2008

Purpose: Undertreatment of canter pain, especially due to the differences in the perception of pain between the patients and caregivers, is a well recognized problem. The purpose of this study were to determine if there exist differences in communication about pain intensity scores between patients and their family caregivers in Korea. Methods: A total of 127 patient-family caregiver dyads who have experienced canter pain participated in this study at a hospital in Seoul for six months. The data were obtained by fare to face interview with a structured questionnaire based on Brief Pain Inventory-Korean version and other previous researches. The clinical information for all patients was compiled by reviewing their medical records. Results: Patients' 'worst-pain for 24-hour' and 'right-now-pain' scores estimated by family caregivers were significantly higher than those by patient themselves. The degree of agreement between patients and family caregivers in the estimate of patients' 'worst-pain for 24-hour' intensity categories was 78.7% for 'severe pain', 40% for 'no pain', 27.5% for 'mild pain' and 22.9% for 'moderate pain'. In case of 'right-now-pain' intensity categories, the agreement was 50% for 'severe pain', 47.2% for mild pain, 46.3% for 'no pain', and 26.3% for 'moderate pain'. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that the degree of agreement between patients and family caregivers in the estimate of patients 'pain intensity categories was less than 50% except for 'severe pain'. The results indicate that Korean family caregivers tend to overestimate the canter pain intensity of their caring patients, especially, when a lancer patient has 'moderate' or 'mild pain'. Health Providers are advised to educate patient-family caregiver dyads to use a pain measurement scale to promote their agreement in pain Intensity stores. Further analyses and studies are needed to identify the factors and differences that influence their communication about pain intensity scores between patients and their family caregivers.

• Journal of Hospice and Palliative Care
• /
• v.8 no.2
• /
• pp.224-233
• /
• 2005

Purpose: This study was conducted to provide basic data for developing an effective strategy for cancer pain management by comparing the levels of barriers to pain management of metastatic or advanced cancer patient and their nurses. Methods: The subject of this study were 155 patients who were treated for metastatic or advanced cancer at one of three hospitals in Seoul from January 2004 to January 2005, and 153 nurses who take care of those patients. The levels of barriers to pain management were measured using a tool developed by Gunnarsdottir et al. (2002), 27 questions on a six point scale. The levels of stresses were measured using a tool modified from a stress response measurement reported by Goh Gyung-bong et al. (2000), 27 questions on a five point scale. The levels of barriers in cancer patients were analyzed using t-test and ANOVA, while the data obtained from patients and nurses were compared by t-test. Results: Higher levels of barriers to pain management were found in three groups: 'less than middle school,' 'not treated with anti-cancer chemotherapy,' and 'ECOG of 2.' The level (2.55) of barriers to pain management in the patient group was higher than that (1.76) of the nurse group. Both of the two groups had high levels of barriers in two variables: 'There is a danger of becoming addicted to pain medicine.' and 'Using pain medicine blocks your ability to know if you have any new pain.' There was not a significant difference in the levels of stresses between the two groups. Conclusion: It was found that, for effective cancer pain management practices, it would be necessary to provide cancer patients and their nurses with education and training about pain management and related barriers.

• Journal of Hospice and Palliative Care
• /
• v.19 no.2
• /
• pp.170-179
• /
• 2016

Purpose: This study examined self-efficacy, self-care behavior, posttraumatic growth, and quality of life in cancer patients and their levels by disease characteristics groups to identify patient groups that require psychosocial intervention. Methods: We surveyed 107 patients using a structured questionnaire about the four factors and analyzed the factors by stratifying the patients by the period after the cancer diagnosis, by stage and by current treatment status. Results: The mean score for self-efficacy was 37.78, and that for self-care behavior 49.96. Patients who were diagnosed less than one year ago scored higher on medication, a sub-category of self-care behavior, than the post-diagnosis period of 1~2 year group. The score was higher in the currently-treated group than the follow-up and distant metastasis groups. For posttraumatic growth, the mean was 56.17, and the factor was higher in the 1~2 year post-diagnosis group after than the less than one year group. The score was higher in the follow-up group than the currently-treated group. With regard to quality of life, the mean score was 25.79, and no significant correlation was found with disease characteristics. Conclusion: A shorter post-diagnosis period increased self-care behavior, and the greatest posttraumatic growth was reported by the 1~2 year post-diagnosis group. It may be necessary to provide cancer patients with an education program and other strategies less than one year after the diagnosis to improve self-efficacy and self-care behavior. To promote post-traumatic growth, it may be helpful to provide patients with psychosocial intervention within two years after the diagnosis.