Patient preferences for acute pain treatment

T. J. Gan, David Lubarsky, E. M. Flood, T. Thanh, J. Mauskopf, T. Mayne, C. Chen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

84 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background. Optimal treatment for acute pain is a function of an individual's willingness to make trade-offs between treatment side effects and pain control. The objective was to investigate the degree to which patients are willing to make these trade-offs. Methods. Fifty patients undergoing major abdominal surgery were enrolled and completed interviews before and after surgery. Measures included an experience with pain questionnaire and an adaptive conjoint analysis (ACA) interview. Results. Percentage of pain relief obtained post-surgery was between 70 and 80%. Eight-two per cent reported at least one moderate or severe side effect. ACA results demonstrated that pain efficacy and side effect type/severity have almost equal 'importance' scores. Patients varied in their willingness to trade-off pain efficacy for different or milder side effects. Conclusions. We conclude that people have different relative preferences for different side effects and are willing to trade-off pain relief for less upsetting and/or less severe side effects but to different degrees. Thus, physicians should consider offering pain medications with fewer side effects than narcotics as a first choice. Our study indicates the need to balance analgesia and side effects in order for patients to achieve optimal pain control.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)681-688
Number of pages8
JournalBritish Journal of Anaesthesia
Volume92
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2004
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Patient Preference
Acute Pain
Pain
Therapeutics
Interviews
Narcotics
Analgesia
Physicians

Keywords

  • Measurement techniques, conjoint analysis
  • Pain treatment, patient preference
  • Pain, postoperative

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine

Cite this

Gan, T. J., Lubarsky, D., Flood, E. M., Thanh, T., Mauskopf, J., Mayne, T., & Chen, C. (2004). Patient preferences for acute pain treatment. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 92(5), 681-688. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aeh123

Patient preferences for acute pain treatment. / Gan, T. J.; Lubarsky, David; Flood, E. M.; Thanh, T.; Mauskopf, J.; Mayne, T.; Chen, C.

In: British Journal of Anaesthesia, Vol. 92, No. 5, 01.01.2004, p. 681-688.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Gan, TJ, Lubarsky, D, Flood, EM, Thanh, T, Mauskopf, J, Mayne, T & Chen, C 2004, 'Patient preferences for acute pain treatment', British Journal of Anaesthesia, vol. 92, no. 5, pp. 681-688. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aeh123
Gan TJ, Lubarsky D, Flood EM, Thanh T, Mauskopf J, Mayne T et al. Patient preferences for acute pain treatment. British Journal of Anaesthesia. 2004 Jan 1;92(5):681-688. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aeh123
Gan, T. J. ; Lubarsky, David ; Flood, E. M. ; Thanh, T. ; Mauskopf, J. ; Mayne, T. ; Chen, C. / Patient preferences for acute pain treatment. In: British Journal of Anaesthesia. 2004 ; Vol. 92, No. 5. pp. 681-688.
@article{1b322417d9ad44b989c95cf5acc08f8f,
title = "Patient preferences for acute pain treatment",
abstract = "Background. Optimal treatment for acute pain is a function of an individual's willingness to make trade-offs between treatment side effects and pain control. The objective was to investigate the degree to which patients are willing to make these trade-offs. Methods. Fifty patients undergoing major abdominal surgery were enrolled and completed interviews before and after surgery. Measures included an experience with pain questionnaire and an adaptive conjoint analysis (ACA) interview. Results. Percentage of pain relief obtained post-surgery was between 70 and 80{\%}. Eight-two per cent reported at least one moderate or severe side effect. ACA results demonstrated that pain efficacy and side effect type/severity have almost equal 'importance' scores. Patients varied in their willingness to trade-off pain efficacy for different or milder side effects. Conclusions. We conclude that people have different relative preferences for different side effects and are willing to trade-off pain relief for less upsetting and/or less severe side effects but to different degrees. Thus, physicians should consider offering pain medications with fewer side effects than narcotics as a first choice. Our study indicates the need to balance analgesia and side effects in order for patients to achieve optimal pain control.",
keywords = "Measurement techniques, conjoint analysis, Pain treatment, patient preference, Pain, postoperative",
author = "Gan, {T. J.} and David Lubarsky and Flood, {E. M.} and T. Thanh and J. Mauskopf and T. Mayne and C. Chen",
year = "2004",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1093/bja/aeh123",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "92",
pages = "681--688",
journal = "British Journal of Anaesthesia",
issn = "0007-0912",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Patient preferences for acute pain treatment

AU - Gan, T. J.

AU - Lubarsky, David

AU - Flood, E. M.

AU - Thanh, T.

AU - Mauskopf, J.

AU - Mayne, T.

AU - Chen, C.

PY - 2004/1/1

Y1 - 2004/1/1

N2 - Background. Optimal treatment for acute pain is a function of an individual's willingness to make trade-offs between treatment side effects and pain control. The objective was to investigate the degree to which patients are willing to make these trade-offs. Methods. Fifty patients undergoing major abdominal surgery were enrolled and completed interviews before and after surgery. Measures included an experience with pain questionnaire and an adaptive conjoint analysis (ACA) interview. Results. Percentage of pain relief obtained post-surgery was between 70 and 80%. Eight-two per cent reported at least one moderate or severe side effect. ACA results demonstrated that pain efficacy and side effect type/severity have almost equal 'importance' scores. Patients varied in their willingness to trade-off pain efficacy for different or milder side effects. Conclusions. We conclude that people have different relative preferences for different side effects and are willing to trade-off pain relief for less upsetting and/or less severe side effects but to different degrees. Thus, physicians should consider offering pain medications with fewer side effects than narcotics as a first choice. Our study indicates the need to balance analgesia and side effects in order for patients to achieve optimal pain control.

AB - Background. Optimal treatment for acute pain is a function of an individual's willingness to make trade-offs between treatment side effects and pain control. The objective was to investigate the degree to which patients are willing to make these trade-offs. Methods. Fifty patients undergoing major abdominal surgery were enrolled and completed interviews before and after surgery. Measures included an experience with pain questionnaire and an adaptive conjoint analysis (ACA) interview. Results. Percentage of pain relief obtained post-surgery was between 70 and 80%. Eight-two per cent reported at least one moderate or severe side effect. ACA results demonstrated that pain efficacy and side effect type/severity have almost equal 'importance' scores. Patients varied in their willingness to trade-off pain efficacy for different or milder side effects. Conclusions. We conclude that people have different relative preferences for different side effects and are willing to trade-off pain relief for less upsetting and/or less severe side effects but to different degrees. Thus, physicians should consider offering pain medications with fewer side effects than narcotics as a first choice. Our study indicates the need to balance analgesia and side effects in order for patients to achieve optimal pain control.

KW - Measurement techniques, conjoint analysis

KW - Pain treatment, patient preference

KW - Pain, postoperative

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=2342567850&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=2342567850&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/bja/aeh123

DO - 10.1093/bja/aeh123

M3 - Article

VL - 92

SP - 681

EP - 688

JO - British Journal of Anaesthesia

JF - British Journal of Anaesthesia

SN - 0007-0912

IS - 5

ER -