ArticleFrontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland)2025
Underutilized treatments for patients with refractory cancer pain: a qualitative study assessing the use of intrathecal drug delivery devices in the United Kingdom compared to alternative treatments in cancer pain management.
Article in Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Barriers to interventional pain management in patients with cancer: a systematic review.BMC palliative care · 2026Pooled it
- Reconsidering neuraxial analgesia at end of life: Clinical, ethical, and socioeconomic perspectives.Interventional pain medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This research aims to better delineate how intrathecal drug delivery systems (IDDS) are incorporated into the oncology care continuum and highlight the need for further awareness of interventional options for pain management of cancer patients in the United Kingdom. The study focuses on exploring the knowledge, perspectives, and experiences of healthcare professionals regarding IDDS as a treatment option for managing chronic refractory pain in cancer patients. Methodology: A thematic coding using inductive analysis was employed to achieve the research objectives. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 18 healthcare professionals in various specialties, including oncology, neurosurgery, pain management, and palliative care. The interviews were transcribed, and a two-phased qualitative inductive coding approach was used to analyze the data. Results: The findings of the study revealed four major themes: Education, Barriers & Benefits, Technical & Administrative, and Patient-Centered Care. The theme of Education highlighted the need for increased knowledge and awareness of IDDS among healthcare professionals. Barriers & Benefits encompassed concerns about infection risk, suitability for patients with a short life expectancy, and the challenges and advantages of IDDS use. The Technical & Administrative theme addressed cost considerations, device management, and the need for improved guidelines. Patient-Centered Care emphasized the importance of involving patients in decision-making and considering their physical and emotional well-being throughout the treatment pathway. Conclusions: This research identifies several areas of unmet need in the management of refractory pain in cancer patients, including the development of more inclusive guidelines, greater awareness among clinicians and patients, and the role of medical technology companies in supporting effective pain management. The findings underscore the impact of IDDS on improving pain control and highlight the potential importance of early intervention and comprehensive pain management in influencing the trajectory of oncological diseases.
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.