Trial reportBMC cancer2020
Implementation of a nurse-led self-management support intervention for patients with cancer-related pain: a cluster randomized phase-IV study with a stepped wedge design (EvANtiPain).
Trial report in BMC cancer, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Evaluation of the Project "Improvement of Nurse-led Self-management Support for Patients With Cancer-related Pain": An Accompanying Cluster Randomized Study With a Stepped Wedge Design
Evaluation of the Effectiveness of a Patient Education for Oncological Patients to Promote Self-management in Pain Therapy
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- The influence of telehealth-based cancer rehabilitation interventions on disability: a systematic review.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2023Pooled it
- Quality of patient-reported outcome reporting and related trial characteristics in randomized controlled trials of cancer pain: A systematic review based on the CONSORT-PRO extension.Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing · 2026Review
- Impact of an algorithm-based postoperative pain management in patients undergoing abdominal surgery-A prospective interventional study.Journal of education and health promotion · 2026Article
- Patient-centred educational interventions for assessing and managing cancer-related pain relevant to minority ethnic populations: A mixed-methods systematic review.Palliative care and social practice · 2026Review
- Data Extractions Using a Large Language Model (Elicit) and Human Reviewers in Randomized Controlled Trials: A Systematic Comparison.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2025Article
- Behavior change theory and behavior change technique use in cancer rehabilitation interventions: a secondary analysis.European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine · 2024Article
- Cancer pain self-management interventions in adults: scoping review.BMJ supportive & palliative care · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPain self-management support interventions were effective in controlled clinical trials and meta analyses. However, implementation of these complex interventions may not translate into identical effects. This paper evaluates the implementation of ANtiPain, a cancer pain self-management support intervention in routine clinical practice according to the Reach Efficacy-Adoption Implementation Maintenance framework.
methodsIn this cluster randomized study with a stepped wedge design, N = 153 adult patients with cancer-related pain were recruited from 01/17 to 05/18 on 17 wards of 3 hospitals in Vienna, Austria. ANtiPain entailed a face-to-face in-hospital session by a trained nurse to prepare discharge according to key strategies, information on pain self-management, and skills building. After discharge, cancer-pain self-management was coached via phone calls. Patient-level data were collected at recruitment, and 2, 4 and 8 weeks after discharge via postal or online questionnaire. Primary outcome was pain interference with daily activities. Secondary outcomes included pain intensity, self-efficacy, and patient satisfaction. Organizational-level data (e.g., on implementation procedures) were collected by study or intervention nurses. The mixed model to analyze patient-level data included a random intercept and a random slope for individual and a random intercept for ward.
resultsRecruitment was slower than expected and unevenly distributed over wards and hospitals. The face-to-face session was clinically feasible (mean duration = 33 min) as well as the mean amount (n = 2) and duration of phone calls (mean = 17 min). Only 16 (46%) of 35 trained nurses performed the intervention on nine wards. To deal with the loss of power, analyses were adapted. Overall effects on pain interference were not significant. However, effects were significant in sub analyses of the nine wards that recruited patients in the intervention period (p = .009). Regarding secondary outcomes, the group-by-time effect was significant for self-efficacy (p = .033), and patient satisfaction with information on pain-self-management (p = .002) and in-hospital pain management (p = .018).
conclusionsThe implementation of ANtiPain improved meaningful patient outcomes on wards that applied the intervention routinely. Our analyses showed that the implementation benefited from being embedded in larger scale projects to improve cancer pain management and that the selection of wards with a high percentage of oncology patients may be crucial.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02891785 Date of registration: September 8, 2016.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.