The purpose of this research was to investigate the effectiveness of a patient and family pain education program on reducing cancer patients' and their families' barriers to (i.e., concerns or misconceptions about) cancer pain management, on increasing patients' adherence to a prescribed analgesic regimen, and on decreasing pain intensity and pain interference with daily life. An experimental and longitudinal design was used. The experimental group consisted of 31 pairs of cancer outpatients and their family carers, while the control group consisted of 30 patient-family pairs (N=122). Patients and their family carers in the experimental group simultaneously received a pain management education program. Both groups had pretest data collection and after-test follow-ups on the second and fourth weeks at the outpatient clinics. Comparisons between those two groups were made using the Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) method. Results revealed that at both the second and fourth weeks, patients and family carers in the experimental group showed a significantly greater reduction in barrier scores than did patients and family carers in the control group. At the second and fourth weeks, patients in the experimental group reported significantly better adherence to a scheduled analgesic regimen than did patients in the control group. In the fourth week, patients in the experimental group reported significantly lower levels of worst pain intensity and pain interference than did patients in the control group. This research provides evidence of the effectiveness of a patient and family pain education program.

Background: Paclitaxel is wildly used in chemotherapy, however, the adverse drug reactions (ADRs) occurred frequently. Various novel nano-based paclitaxel delivery systems were developed. The aim performed systemically review and meta-analyses to evaluate the effect adverse drug reactions (ADRs) of paclitaxel and its nano-based delivery systems. Methods: Systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane, Clinicalkey, Clinicaltrial.com, ASCO and ESMO. Data of adverse effect were analyzed to odds ratio (ORs) with 95% confidence interval (CI). The quality of studies was assessed with CASP Randomised Controlled Trial Checklist. Statistical analysis was used WinBUGS software (version 1.4.3) with the NetMetaXL interface (version 1.6.1). Results: Twenty-one studies, including 7011 patients and 6 paclitaxel formulations fulfilled the inclusion criteria. In all grade hypersensitivity reactions, comparing to SB-P, people with Lip-P had 0.19 times (95% CI= 0.02, 1.3) of chance, with Nab-P had 0.47 times (95% CI= 0.11, 1.40) of chance, with PPX had 0.44 times (95% CI= 0.03, 5.7) of chance for all grade adverse effect. In All grad neutropenia, comparing to Lip-P, people with SB-P had 0.83 times (95% CI= 0.15, 4.81) of chance for all grade adverse effect; comparing to PM-P, people with SB-P had 0.73 times (95% CI= 0.22, 2.42) of chance for all grade adverse effect. In leucopenia, comparing to Nab-P, people with SB-P had 0.66 times (95% CI= 0.50, 0.87) of chance for all grade adverse effect; comparing to PM-P, people with SB-P had 0.64 times (95% CI= 0.32, 1.16) of chance for all grade adverse effect. The rate of incidence in peripheral sensory neuropathy, myalgias and arthralgias tend to no significant differences between different formulations. Conclusion: Nano-based paclitaxel delivery resulted in fewer hypersensitivity reactions than solvent-based delivery. However, the incidence of neutropenia and leucopenia was higher in nano-based than solvent-based paclitaxel delivery. Dose-dependent ADRs were more frequent in paclitaxel anticancer treatment.

Background: Males and females have significant differences in certain medical outcomes. However, little research has explored the gender differences in cancer patient perceptions of analgesics, the relationship between gender and analgesic adherence, or the effectiveness of pain management. Objective: The objectives of this study were to compare gender differences associated with hesitancy to use analgesics, analgesic adherence, or pain management effectiveness and to examine whether gender can precisely predict analgesic adherence. Methods: The study was conducted in the outpatient oncology department of a medical center in Taiwan. A descriptive and cross-sectional design was used. The study samples were collected from 362 cancer patients. The participants completed the short version of the Barriers Questionnaire–Taiwan, the Morisky Analgesics Adherence Measure–Taiwan version, the Brief Pain Inventory–Chinese version, the Pain Management Index, and a demographic and disease questionnaire. Results: The pain intensity and hesitancy to use analgesics scores were significantly higher among females than among males. The Pain Management Index results indicated that a larger percentage of males had adequate pain management. In addition, being male was a significant predictor of higher analgesic adherence (odds ratio, 1.93; P < .05). Conclusions: Gender could precisely predict cancer patients’ medication adherence. Women experienced significantly greater pain than did men but also had more hesitancy to use analgesics, lower adherence, and inadequate pain management. Implications for Practice: Healthcare professionals should consider women as a high-risk group for inadequate pain control. It is crucial for health providers to consider the gender discrepancy when attempting to improve cancer pain management.

When the 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) chemotherapy regimen is used to treat colorectal cancer (CRC), chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) caused by oxaliplatin can substantially affect quality of life (QOL) in the CRC patients. This study compared emotional distress and QOL during FOLFOX in CRC patients with and without CIPN symptoms. This cross-sectional, descriptive, and comparative study recruited 68 CRC patients receiving FOLFOX at a local teaching hospital and at a medical center in southern Taiwan. Self-reported structured questionnaires (oxaliplatin-associated neuropathy questionnaire, profile of mood states short form, and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire, Core 30, version 3.0) were used for 1-time data collection. The Chi-square test, Fisher exact test, and Mann–Whitney U test were used to analyze data, and a P-value < .05 was considered statistically significant. The CIPN group had 45 (66.2%) patients, and the non-CIPN group had 23 (33.8%) patients. The 5 most common symptoms were coldness-related burning sensation or discomfort in the upper limbs, numbness in the upper limbs, tingling in the upper limbs, impairment of vision, and discomfort in the throat. The CIPN group had more females (P = .013), a more advanced stage of CRC (P = .04) and a higher chemotherapy dosage (P = .006). The 2 groups did not significantly differ in anxiety (P = .065) or depression (P = .135). Compared to the non-CIPN group, the CIPN group had significantly lower functioning (P = .001) and global health status (P < .001) and significantly more symptoms (P < .001). The CIPN group had significantly lower QOL compared to the non-CIPN group. However, the CIPN group did not have lower emotional distress compared to the non-CIPN group. The results of this study demonstrate the need for in-service courses specifically designed to train health professionals in assessing and managing CIPN symptoms to improve QOL in CRC patients receiving FOLFOX.