Caregivers' experiences and coping strategies relating to patient's subjective treatment-related cognitive impairment following Haematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant (HSCT)

The treatments involved in cancers of the blood and bone marrow can be physically and psychologically challenging and be associated with adverse secondary effects, including cognitive impairment. The incidence and severity of treatment-related cognitive impairment varies widely, however it can significantly impact quality of life by interfering with patients’ activities of daily living, relationships and future plans. It can also pose challenges for the patients’ caregivers, an area which has received comparatively less research attention. The aim of this study was to investigate caregivers’ experiences of treatment-related cognitive impairment in patients who have undergone Haematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant (HSCT); how they coped, both practically and emotionally, and what supports they believe could help them. Participants were caregivers to individuals who had undergone HSCT within the past 20 years and who had reported cognitive changes at the HSCT Late Effects Clinic, Beatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre. Five participants completed a single semi-structured interview. The data was then analysed using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA). Results of this analysis illustrated four super-ordinate themes: noticing change; managing expectations, managing personal feelings and commitment. Findings from the current study highlighted the importance of caregiver education regarding post HSCT cognitive and behavioural changes and providing caregiver emotional support. Future research should explore the mutual needs of both care recipient and caregiver.

An examination of verbal descriptors of cancer-induced bone pain and neuropathic cancer pain

Aims: The aim of the thesis was to identify verbal descriptors of cancer induced bone pain (CIBP) and neuropathic cancer pain (NCP). An examination of the verbal descriptors associated with these two pain syndromes further considered the relationship between common verbal descriptors, cancer type, performance status and analgesia. Methods: The project was conducted in two phases; Phase one was a systematic review of the literature to examine current evidence of verbal descriptors in CIBP and NCP. Phase two utilised secondary data analysis methodology. Data from 120 patients with confirmed CIBP and 61 patients with confirmed NCP were deemed eligible for entry into a de novo database for secondary analysis. Key descriptive data were considered such as gender, ECOG and pain scores to characterise the patient population. Verbal descriptors of CIBP and NCP were considered in detail across the secondary de novo database. Results: Gender was not identified as a diagnostic characteristic of CIBP and NCP with similar distribution across prevalence of pain reporting and also pain severity. Patients with breast (n=52,43.3%), prostate (n=35,29.2%) and lung (n=14,11.7%) cancer were found to be at an increased risk of CIBP. Those with NCP more was found more commonly among patients with breast cancer (n=21,34.4%). Patients with CIBP were found to have an ECOG performance of 1 (n=49, 40.8%) or 2 (n=43, 35.8%) which was lower than those with NCP with an ECOG of 0 (n=32, 52.5%) or 2 (n=18, 29.5%). Comparisons were made across analgesia and treatment options for CIBP and NCP. Patients with CIBP received a greater variety of treatment options including bisphosphonates and radiotherapy while patients with NCP were more commonly treated with analgesia alone. Patients with CIBP and NCP were taking strong opioids, however those with NCP (n=45, 73.8%) were more likely to utilise strong opioids than those with CIBP (n=61, 50.8%). It was noted that those with NCP required a daily morphine equivalence of almost 50% higher than those with CIBP. Average consumption of opioids was 155.6mg, for patients with NCP, compared to 76mg in patients with CIBP. Common verbal descriptors of CIBP and NCP were identified. The most common verbal descriptors for CIBP were aching, gnawing and throbbing and the most common verbal descriptors of NCP were aching, tender and sharp. Of the most common 6 descriptors for CIBP and NCP only one descriptor was unique to each pain type, gnawing for CIBP and stabbing for NCP. Conclusions: Patients with CIBP and NCP use similar verbal descriptors to characterise their pain with gnawing being unique to CIBP and stabbing being unique to NCP in the data considered within project. Further research is required to explore verbal descriptors which are both common and unique to CIBP and NCP. Further exploration of verbal descriptors would assist development of a comprehensive pain assessment tool which would enhance pain assessment for nurses, clinicians and patients.