This review examines evidence for psychological factors that affect pain across the cancer continuum from diagnosis through treatment and long-term survivorship or end of life. Evidence is convincing that emotional distress, depression, anxiety, uncertainty, and hopelessness interact with pain. Unrelieved pain can increase a desire for hastened death. Patients with cancer use many strategies to manage pain, with catastrophizing associated with increased pain and self-efficacy associated with lower pain reports. A variety of psychological and cognitive behavioral treatments can reduce pain severity and interference with function, as indicated in multiple meta-analyses and high-quality randomized controlled trials. Effective methods include education (with coping skills training), hypnosis, cognitive behavioral approaches, and relaxation with imagery. Exercise has been tested extensively in patients with cancer and long-term survivors, but few exercise studies have evaluated pain outcomes. In survivors post-treatment, yoga and hypnosis as well as exercise show promise for controlling pain. Although some of these treatments effectively reduce pain for patients with advanced disease, few have been tested in patients at the end of life. Given the clear indicators that psychological factors affect cancer pain and that psychological and behavioral treatments are effective in reducing varying types of pain for patients with active disease, these methods need further testing in cancer survivors post-treatment and in patients with end-stage disease. Multidisciplinary teams are essential in oncology settings to integrate analgesic care and expertise in psychological and behavioral interventions in standard care for symptom management, including pain.

BackgroundPain is a challenge for patients following hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT).ObjectiveThis study aimed to develop and test the feasibility, acceptability, and initial efficacy of a Web-based mobile pain coping skills training (mPCST) protocol designed to address the needs of HCT patients.MethodsParticipants had undergone HCT and reported pain following transplant (N=68). To guide intervention development, qualitative data were collected from focus group participants (n=25) and participants who completed user testing (n=7). After their input was integrated into the mPCST intervention, a pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT, n=36) was conducted to examine the feasibility, acceptability, and initial efficacy of the intervention. Measures of acceptability, pain severity, pain disability, pain self-efficacy, fatigue, and physical disability (self-report and 2-min walk test [2MWT]) were collected.ResultsParticipants in the focus groups and user testing provided qualitative data that were used to iteratively refine the mPCST protocol. Focus group qualitative data included participants’ experiences with pain following transplant, perspectives on ways to cope with pain, and suggestions for pain management for other HCT patients. User testing participants provided feedback on the HCT protocol and information on the use of videoconferencing. The final version of the mPCST intervention was designed to bridge the intensive outpatient (1 in-person session) and home settings (5 videoconferencing sessions). A key component of the intervention was a website that provided personalized messages based on daily assessments of pain and activity. The website also provided intervention materials (ie, electronic handouts, short videos, and audio files). The intervention content included pain coping advice from other transplant patients and instructions on how to apply pain coping skills while engaging in meaningful and leisure activities. In the RCT phase of this research, HCT patients (n=36) were randomized to receive the mPCST intervention or to proceed with the treatment as usual. Results revealed that the mPCST participants completed an average of 5 out of 6 sessions. The participants reported that the intervention was highly acceptable (mean 3/4), and they found the sessions to be helpful (mean 8/10) and easy to understand (mean 7/7). The mPCST participants demonstrated significant improvements in pre- to post-treatment pain, self-efficacy (P=.03, d=0.61), and on the 2MWT (P=.03, d=0.66), whereas the patients in the treatment-as-usual group did not report any such improvements. Significant changes in pain disability and fatigue were found in both groups (multiple P<.02); the magnitudes of the effect sizes were larger for the mPCST group than for the control group (pain disability: d=0.79 vs 0.69; fatigue: d=0.94 vs 0.81). There were no significant changes in pain severity in either group.ConclusionsUsing focus groups and user testing, we developed an mPCST protocol that was feasible, acceptable, and beneficia...

No abstract