Sedation from analgesics: patient preference survey.

IF 2 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care Pub Date : 2025-02-26 DOI:10.1136/spcare-2023-004759
Joseph Burdon, Samuel Fingas, Rachel Parry, Constantina Pitsillides, Paul Taylor
{"title":"Sedation from analgesics: patient preference survey.","authors":"Joseph Burdon, Samuel Fingas, Rachel Parry, Constantina Pitsillides, Paul Taylor","doi":"10.1136/spcare-2023-004759","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The propensity for certain analgesics to cause sedation is well documented, yet physician-patient dialogue does not routinely include pre-emptive exploration of preferences regarding this side effect.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To investigate the extent to which palliative patients would accept sedation as a side effect of analgesia and to identify factors affecting decision-making.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients (n=76) known to a specialist palliative care services were given hypothetical scenarios regarding pain and asked about the acceptability of varying levels of sedation occurring as an analgesic side effect. Demographic data, including diagnosis, performance status and experience of pain and sedation, were collated for evaluation of the influence of these factors on patient opinion.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Most patients (89.47%) would be quite or very likely to accept mild sedation. A significant minority (40.79%) would accept high levels of sedation. There is no significant association with the acceptability of sedation according to demographics. Almost half (40.79%) reported that their responses may change if the prognosis were extended, typically for less sedation with a longer prognosis.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Increasing levels of sedation are less acceptable, although there is significant variation in views. Palliative care patients are likely to indicate preferences regarding their acceptability of sedation. Palliative physicians must explore preferences on an individualised basis.</p>","PeriodicalId":9136,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care","volume":" ","pages":"262-265"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/spcare-2023-004759","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The propensity for certain analgesics to cause sedation is well documented, yet physician-patient dialogue does not routinely include pre-emptive exploration of preferences regarding this side effect.

Objectives: To investigate the extent to which palliative patients would accept sedation as a side effect of analgesia and to identify factors affecting decision-making.

Methods: Patients (n=76) known to a specialist palliative care services were given hypothetical scenarios regarding pain and asked about the acceptability of varying levels of sedation occurring as an analgesic side effect. Demographic data, including diagnosis, performance status and experience of pain and sedation, were collated for evaluation of the influence of these factors on patient opinion.

Results: Most patients (89.47%) would be quite or very likely to accept mild sedation. A significant minority (40.79%) would accept high levels of sedation. There is no significant association with the acceptability of sedation according to demographics. Almost half (40.79%) reported that their responses may change if the prognosis were extended, typically for less sedation with a longer prognosis.

Conclusions: Increasing levels of sedation are less acceptable, although there is significant variation in views. Palliative care patients are likely to indicate preferences regarding their acceptability of sedation. Palliative physicians must explore preferences on an individualised basis.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
镇痛药的镇静作用:患者偏好调查。
背景:某些镇痛药会导致镇静的倾向已被充分记录在案,但医患对话并不经常包括对这一副作用的偏好进行预先探讨:调查姑息治疗患者在多大程度上接受镇静作为镇痛的副作用,并确定影响决策的因素:方法:向接受姑息治疗专科服务的患者(76 人)提供有关疼痛的假设情景,并询问患者对镇痛副作用--不同程度的镇静的接受程度。对包括诊断、表现状况以及疼痛和镇静经历在内的人口统计学数据进行了整理,以评估这些因素对患者意见的影响:大多数患者(89.47%)相当或非常有可能接受轻度镇静。相当少数的患者(40.79%)会接受高度镇静。镇静剂的可接受性与人口统计学无明显关联。近一半(40.79%)的人表示,如果预后延长,他们的反应可能会改变,通常是预后较长的情况下接受较少的镇静剂:结论:尽管观点存在很大差异,但镇静程度的增加不太容易被接受。姑息关怀患者很可能会对镇静剂的可接受性提出自己的偏好。姑息治疗医生必须在个体化的基础上探索他们的偏好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care
BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
7.40%
发文量
170
期刊介绍: Published quarterly in print and continuously online, BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care aims to connect many disciplines and specialties throughout the world by providing high quality, clinically relevant research, reviews, comment, information and news of international importance. We hold an inclusive view of supportive and palliative care research and we are able to call on expertise to critique the whole range of methodologies within the subject, including those working in transitional research, clinical trials, epidemiology, behavioural sciences, ethics and health service research. Articles with relevance to clinical practice and clinical service development will be considered for publication. In an international context, many different categories of clinician and healthcare workers do clinical work associated with palliative medicine, specialist or generalist palliative care, supportive care, psychosocial-oncology and end of life care. We wish to engage many specialties, not only those traditionally associated with supportive and palliative care. We hope to extend the readership to doctors, nurses, other healthcare workers and researchers in medical and surgical specialties, including but not limited to cardiology, gastroenterology, geriatrics, neurology, oncology, paediatrics, primary care, psychiatry, psychology, renal medicine, respiratory medicine.
期刊最新文献
Crisis pack prescribing in terminal haemorrhage: a national survey of specialist palliative medicine physicians. Divergence in DNACPR and resuscitation policies: institutional survey in England. End-of-life care in a major UK trauma centre. Palliative care utilisation globally by cancer patients: systematic review and meta-analysis. Cardiac dysfunction in solid tumours: scoping review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1