Abstract A028: Exploring age and race/ethnic associations with the multiple dimensions of pain among cancer patients receiving home hospice care
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Aim: Racial disparities in pain are well known, but most hospice studies included few underrepresented minority patients, which limits understanding of pain disparities among cancer patients receiving hospice care. Our study purpose was to explore age and racial/ethnic associations with the sensory, affective, evaluative, and temporal dimensions of cancer pain in the hospice setting. Methods: We analyzed control group data from a stepped-wedge randomized control trial of the PAINRelieveIt app. 150 home hospice patients with a variety of cancers (mean age 68.0±14.6 years, 52% female, 44% White, 37% Black, 19% Hispanic) completed PAINReportIt, an electronic McGill Pain Questionnaire, on an internet-enabled tablet at baseline and 1 week later. We compared racial/ethnic groups for age (ANOVA) and gender (Chi square) differences. We also conducted regression analyses of baseline and posttest sensory pain (current pain intensity [0-10], worst pain intensity [0-10], Pain Rating Index[PRI]-Sensory), affective pain (PRI-Affective [0-14), evaluative pain (PRI-Evaluative), and pain pattern scores, adjusting for age, and comparing Black and Hispanic with White groups. Results: Gender was relatively balanced across the racial/ethnic groups (p=.54). There was significant difference among groups in mean age (p=.01; Black: 64.1±12.1, Hispanic: 66.5±16.6, White: 71.9±14.8). Baseline current and worst pain intensity were moderate and severe respectively across Black (4.7±2.9; 7.1±1.9), Hispanic (5.4±2.6; 7.7±2.1), and White (4.4±2.7; 6.7±2.6) groups (p>.05). Posttest current and worst pain intensity remained moderate and severe across Black (4.6±2.8; 6.5±2.3), Hispanic (4.7±2.4; 6.5±2.2) and White (4.0±2.4 and 5.9±2.4) groups (p>.05). Baseline values were not significantly different across racial/ethnic groups for PRI-Sensory, PRI-Evaluative, and pain pattern. Baseline PRI-Affective scores differed significantly among Black (1.8±2.0), Hispanic (3.8±3.9) and White (3.1±2.6) groups (p=.003). Higher baseline pain values for all variables except current pain were associated with younger age (p≤.02) and the Black group had significantly lower PRI-Affective (p=.001). Posttest, higher current pain and worst pain were associated with younger age (p=.04). Other pain variables were not associated with age or race/ethnicity (p>.05). Conclusions: Patients with advanced cancer, regardless of race or ethnicity, reported clinically important current and worst pain intensity suggesting the need for better pain control in the hospice setting. Younger patients reported more intense pain than older patients. Younger patients reported more intense pain than older patients. The significantly lower affective contribution to pain among Black patients at baseline represents a novel finding that warrants additional research. Insufficient pain control remained consistent across racial/ethnic groups in usual hospice care. The racial/ethnic disparities commonly observed in pain management was not evident in this sample. Citation Format: Jeronda C. Jenkins, Dottington Fullwood, Yingwei Yao, Diana Wilkie, Miriam O. Ezenwa. Exploring age and race/ethnic associations with the multiple dimensions of pain among cancer patients receiving home hospice care [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 15th AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2022 Sep 16-19; Philadelphia, PA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2022;31(1 Suppl):Abstract nr A028.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».