Defining and assessing animal pain

The detection and assessment of pain in animals is crucial to improving their welfare in a variety of contexts in which humans are ethically or legally bound to do so. Thus clear standards to judge whether pain is likely to occur in any animal species is vital to inform whether to alleviate pain or to drive the refinement of procedures to reduce invasiveness, thereby minimizing pain. We define two key concepts that can be used to evaluate the potential for pain in both invertebrate and vertebrate taxa. First, responses to noxious, potentially painful events should affect neurobiology, physiology and behaviour in a different manner to innocuous stimuli and subsequent behaviour should be modified including avoidance learning and protective responses. Second, animals should show a change in motivational state after experiencing a painful event such that future behavioural decision making is altered and can be measured as a change in conditioned place preference, self-administration of analgesia, paying a cost to access analgesia or avoidance of painful stimuli and reduced performance in concurrent events. The extent to which vertebrate and selected invertebrate groups fulfil these criteria is discussed in light of the empirical evidence and where there are gaps in our knowledge we propose future studies are vital to improve our assessment of pain. This review highlights arguments regarding animal pain and defines criteria that demonstrate, beyond a reasonable doubt, whether animals of a given species experience pain.

Preferences for place of care and place of death among informal caregivers of the terminally ill

Objectives: (1) To determine informal caregivers perceptions about place of care and place of death; and (2) to identify variables associated with a home death among terminally ill individuals who received in-home support services in a publicly funded home care system. Participants and design: A total of 216 informal caregivers participated in a bereavement interview. Data collection included care recipient and informal caregiver characteristics, the use of and satisfaction with community services, and preferences about place of death. Results: Most caregivers reported that they and the care recipient had a preferred place of death (77 and 68%, respectively) with over 63% reporting home as the preferred place of death. Caregivers had a greater preference for an institutional death (14%) than care recipients (4.7%). While 30% of care recipients did not die in their preferred location, most caregivers (92%) felt, in retrospect, that where the care recipient died was the appropriate place of death. Most caregivers reported being satisfied with the care that was provided. The odds of dying at home were greater when the care recipient stated a preference for place of death (OR: 2.92; 95% CI: 1.25, 6.85), and the family physician made home visits during the care recipients last month of life (Univariate odds ratios (OR): 4.42; 95% CI: 1.46, 13.36). Discussion: The ethic of self-control and choice for the care recipient must be balanced with consideration for the well being of the informal caregiver and responsiveness of the community service system. © 2005 Edward Arnold (Publishers) Ltd.

Predictors of place of death for those in receipt of home-based palliative care services in Ontario, Canada

Many cancer patients die in institutional settings despite their preference to die at home. A longitudinal, prospective cohort study was conducted to comprehensively assess the determinants of home death for patients receiving home-based palliative care. Data collected from biweekly telephone interviews with caregivers (n=302) and program databases were entered into a multivariate logistic model. Patients with high nursing costs (odds ratio [OR]: 4.3; confidence interval [CI]: 1.8-10.2) and patients with high personal support worker costs (OR: 2.3; CI: 1.1-4.5) were more likely to die at home than those with low costs. Patients who lived alone were less likely to die at home than those who cohabitated (OR: 0.4; CI: 0.2-0.8), and those with a high propensity for a home-death preference were more likely to die at home than those with a low propensity (OR: 5.8; CI: 1.1-31.3). An understanding of the predictors of place of death may contribute to the development of effective interventions that support home death.