Pain is one of the most prominent symptoms faced by cancer patients. It is known that patient and caregiver-targeted educational interventions addressing the proper use of pain management may provide significant clinical value. This review examines the literature surrounding the use of multimedia interventions for patient and caregiver education (PCE) on pain management compared to traditional educational interventions. A literature search was conducted in Ovid MEDLINE (1946-July Week 2, 2016), Ovid Embase (1947-2016 Week 29), and Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (up to June 2016). Paired reviewers conducted title and abstract screening and full-text screening to identify experimental, quasi-experimental and cohort studies evaluating one or more multimedia-based PCE interventions focused on cancer pain and pain management and targeting patients and/or caregivers. Findings were extracted by paired reviewers and synthesized qualitatively. Of the 68 full-text papers assessed, 7 were deemed relevant, of which 5 were RCTs and 2 were observational studies. We found limited but convincing quantitative data to suggest that the use of multimedia use in pain management education for patients/caregivers has greater value-added benefit compared to standard education. While there is evidence suggesting a positive effect on pain-related outcomes with the use of multimedia-based patient and caregiver-targeted interventions, it is limited to a small number of lower-quality studies. More robust and large-scale studies are needed to supplement existing evidence and provide more insight regarding the usability and user-friendliness of these tools in practice.

Background:Patient-centered care requires knowledge of patients’ goals of care (GoC) on the part of health care providers (HCPs). Whether HCPs caring for in-center hemodialysis patients meet this criterion is uncertain.Objective:We designed and conducted a GoC survey among patients and HCPs within a single in-center hemodialysis (ICHD) program to determine whether HCPs have an understanding of their patients’ GoC.Design:This was a prospective comparative quantitative survey study.Setting:The study included a single Canadian maintenance ICHD center.Participants:These included hemodialysis patients and their primary nephrologists, nurses, social workers, pharmacists, and dietitians.Methods and Measurements:Two surveys, one for patients and another for primary HCPs, were designed, piloted, and administered. For each participating patient, HCPs consisted of the primary nephrologist, nurse, social worker, pharmacist, and dietitian. Surveys included questions pertaining to 7 GoC themes. Patient-HCP agreement on the importance of each domain individually and the most important domain overall was assessed with kappa statistics. Factors influencing agreement were assessed with logistic regression in a secondary analysis.Results:A total of 173 patients were invited to participate, of whom 137 (79%) completed surveys. Fifty HCPs completed 623 corresponding surveys: 132 by physicians, 112 by nurses, 126 by pharmacists, 127 by social workers, and 126 by dietitians. A total of 70.1% and 78.8% of patients agreed with the importance of and would feel comfortable having GoC discussions, respectively, with their HCPs; 42.7% of physicians reported not having provided prognostic information to the corresponding patient. Patient-HCP agreement regarding GoC was poor (all κ < .25, all P values > .05). In adjusted analyses, only patients choosing “Be Cured” as the most important GoC was significantly associated with poorer HCP-patient agreement than expected (odds ratio, 0.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.01-0.18).Limitations:This is a single-center study involving only ICHD patients.Conclusions:HCP perceptions of GoC did not agree with patients’ reported GoC. This study suggests the need for the design and validation of interventions to improve HCPs’ understanding of their patients’ GoC.

BackgroundPhysicians often find significant challenges in assessing automobile driving in persons with mild cognitive impairment and mild dementia and deciding when to report to transportation administrators. Care must be taken to balance the safety of patients and other road users with potential negative effects of issuing such reports.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to assess whether a computer-based Driving in Dementia Decision Tool (DD-DT) increased appropriate reporting of patients with mild dementia or mild cognitive impairment to transportation administrators.MethodsThe study used a parallel-group cluster nonblinded randomized controlled trial design to test a multifaceted knowledge translation intervention. The intervention included a computer-based decision support system activated by the physician-user, which provides a recommendation about whether to report patients with mild dementia or mild cognitive impairment to transportation administrators, based on an algorithm derived from earlier work. The intervention also included a mailed educational package and Web-based specialized reporting forms. Specialists and family physicians with expertise in dementia or care of the elderly were stratified by sex and randomized to either use the DD-DT or a control version of the tool that required identical data input as the intervention group, but instead generated a generic reminder about the reporting legislation in Ontario, Canada. The trial ran from September 9, 2014 to January 29, 2016, and the primary outcome was the number of reports made to the transportation administrators concordant with the algorithm.ResultsA total of 69 participating physicians were randomized, and 36 of these used the DD-DT; 20 of the 35 randomized to the intervention group used DD-DT with 114 patients, and 16 of the 34 randomized to the control group used it with 103 patients. The proportion of all assessed patients reported to the transportation administrators concordant with recommendation did not differ between the intervention and the control groups (50% vs 49%; Z=−0.19, P=.85). Two variables predicted algorithm-based reporting—caregiver concern (odds ratio [OR]=5.8, 95% CI 2.5-13.6, P<.001) and abnormal clock drawing (OR 6.1, 95% CI 3.1-11.8, P<.001).ConclusionsOn the basis of this quantitative analysis, in-office abnormal clock drawing and expressions of concern about driving from caregivers substantially influenced physicians to report patients with mild dementia or mild cognitive impairment to transportation administrators, but the DD-DT tool itself did not increase such reports among these expert physicians.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02036099; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02036099 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6zGMF1ky8)

No abstract

BackgroundThis article presents the results of a community consultation (CC) process completed in Toronto, Ontario, using a random digit dialling technique, on the attitudes and perceptions of the public toward the use of exception from informed consent when conducting emergency research involving the use of massive blood transfusions.MethodsIn 2012, our hospital conducted a CC, using a random digit dialling technique, to elicit the attitudes and perceptions of the public toward the use of an exemption from informed consent for an upcoming clinical trial. A total of 500 participants from high violent crime areas were interviewed as part of this consultation.ResultsThe response rate for the telephone survey was 54%. Participants indicated a personal acceptance rate of 76%, acceptance of the justification for the exception to consent at 81%, thatthe study would meet the best interest of patients and the community at 81% and that youth (between 15 and 18 years) could be enrolled at 71%. When offered, no participant requested an opt-out wrist band to avoid being enrolled in this study.DiscussionThe use of violent crime neighborhoods to locate at risk communities was not effective in identifying the appropriate community of interest for this study. Though only representing a small subpopulation from a large Canadian city, the attitudes noted here is suggestive that Canadians may have a similar level of acceptance as the US based on published studies. However, given the resources needed to undertake this process and that in the end it did not elicit any useful feedback or recommendations for enhancing the safety of participants, the future use of phone surveys as a means of engaging communities should be reconsidered.Level of evidence (Level V)This is a retrospective subanalysis of a CC using a randomized phone dialling technique from a site prior to the start of the Pragmatic Randomized Optimal Platelet and Plasma Ratios Trial. The CC was not designed specifically for research purposes and as such reflect only a case study from a single center.Trial registration numberPre-result, NCT01545232.