We have located links that may give you full text access.
Patient choice of adjunctive nonpharmacologic pain management during first-trimester abortion: a randomized controlled trial.
Contraception 2018 September
OBJECTIVE: To determine if offering patients a choice of adjunctive nonpharmacologic pain management during first-trimester aspiration abortion results in lower pain scores when compared with standard care.
STUDY DESIGN: We enrolled women receiving first-trimester aspiration abortion at the University of Hawaii. We randomized patients to standard care (control) or standard care plus a choice of nonpharmacologic pain management options (intervention). Standard care was ibuprofen 800 mg orally at least 30 min preprocedure, lidocaine paracervical block and anticipatory guidance from the provider. We measured pain on a 100-mm visual analog scale immediately postprocedure with adequate sample size to detect a 20-mm difference in pain scores.
RESULTS: Seventy-four women participated in the trial and reported an overall mean pain score of 61.9±27.0. Participants in the control and intervention groups reported similar overall mean pain scores (control 60.6±28.8, intervention 63.3±28.5). We found procedure time, complications, provider-perceived case difficulty and patient satisfaction with pain management to be similar between groups. Providers underestimated participant pain compared to participants' own scores (mean physician estimate of participant pain: 46.3±18.5, mean participant pain score: 61.9±27.0, p<.01). Intervention group participants most frequently selected ambient music (59%) as the nonpharmacologic intervention. Forty-one percent (15/37) of participants in the intervention group chose more than one nonpharmacologic intervention.
CONCLUSIONS: Participants in the control group reported similar pain scores to participants in the intervention group. Procedure time and difficulty were similar between the two groups.
IMPLICATIONS: Incorporating patient choice into a nonpharmacologic pain management model did not result in lower pain scores. This approach did increase the patient's visit time. Abortion providers frequently use nonpharmacologic pain management in the United States, and these techniques did not negatively impact patient pain scores in our study.
STUDY DESIGN: We enrolled women receiving first-trimester aspiration abortion at the University of Hawaii. We randomized patients to standard care (control) or standard care plus a choice of nonpharmacologic pain management options (intervention). Standard care was ibuprofen 800 mg orally at least 30 min preprocedure, lidocaine paracervical block and anticipatory guidance from the provider. We measured pain on a 100-mm visual analog scale immediately postprocedure with adequate sample size to detect a 20-mm difference in pain scores.
RESULTS: Seventy-four women participated in the trial and reported an overall mean pain score of 61.9±27.0. Participants in the control and intervention groups reported similar overall mean pain scores (control 60.6±28.8, intervention 63.3±28.5). We found procedure time, complications, provider-perceived case difficulty and patient satisfaction with pain management to be similar between groups. Providers underestimated participant pain compared to participants' own scores (mean physician estimate of participant pain: 46.3±18.5, mean participant pain score: 61.9±27.0, p<.01). Intervention group participants most frequently selected ambient music (59%) as the nonpharmacologic intervention. Forty-one percent (15/37) of participants in the intervention group chose more than one nonpharmacologic intervention.
CONCLUSIONS: Participants in the control group reported similar pain scores to participants in the intervention group. Procedure time and difficulty were similar between the two groups.
IMPLICATIONS: Incorporating patient choice into a nonpharmacologic pain management model did not result in lower pain scores. This approach did increase the patient's visit time. Abortion providers frequently use nonpharmacologic pain management in the United States, and these techniques did not negatively impact patient pain scores in our study.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Diagnosis and Management of Cardiac Sarcoidosis: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation 2024 April 19
Essential thrombocythaemia: A contemporary approach with new drugs on the horizon.British Journal of Haematology 2024 April 9
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app