ArticleJournal of pain research2026
Exploring Acceptance of Pain Management Strategies in Oncology: A Single-Center Cross-Sectional Survey.
Article in Journal of pain research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pain remains a debilitating symptom for cancer patients, with over half of patients experiencing it during their illness. While pharmacological treatments are the primary approach, their limitations have prompted exploration of alternative methods, among them: non-invasive brain stimulation. Despite its safety, affordability, and growing evidence base, transcranial direct current stimulation remains underutilized in cancer care, and patient's attitude toward its use is unknown. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted at a single oncology center employing a mixed‑format questionnaire comprising single‑choice and multiple‑choice response options. It assessed the patients' acceptance of pain therapies, and willingness to participate in clinical trials, with a focus on transcranial direct current stimulation as a pain management modality in oncology care. The study also examined associations between acceptance levels and factors such as pain presence, pain intensity and demographic characteristics. Results: Of the 179 oncology patients approached, 124 provided valid responses (usable response rate: 83.2%). In the study sample, the average age was 62 years, with a predominance of female participants. Colorectal and breast cancer were most common, and nearly half of the cohort had stage IV disease. Clinically significant pain (Numerical Rating Scale ≥4) was reported by 34.68% of patients, with a higher prevalence among those with metastatic disease (46.5% vs 24.2%, p = 0.009). Survey responses revealed polarized attitudes toward morphine, consistent acceptance of non-pharmacological treatments, and moderate support for transcranial direct current stimulation. Demographic, clinical, and pain-related variables did not significantly influence responses, nor the acceptance of tDCS. Conclusion: Gaining insight into patient perspectives on pain management is crucial for the effective integration of innovative, non-pharmacological approaches within supportive oncology care. The present study offers foundational data to guide subsequent research and inform strategies for clinical implementation.
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.