Is it possible to detect an improvement in XXXX management? A comparison of two Norwegian cross-sectional studies conducted 5  years apart.

@entity5 @entity1 @entity158
PURPOSE: @entity5 ( @entity5 ) management is challenging. In recent years, efforts were undertaken to achieve better @entity5 management, e.g. clinical research, new treatment modalities, development of guidelines, education and focus on implementation. The aim of the present study was to compare the prevalence and characteristics of @entity158 and @entity158 ( @entity158 ) between cross-sectional studies conducted in 2008 and 2014. It was hypothesized that an improvement in @entity158 control would be observed the years in between. METHODS: Two cross-sectional studies were conducted where @entity5 @entity1 answered questions from Brief Pain Inventory and the Alberta Breakthrough Pain Assessment Tool for @entity5 @entity1 . Physicians reported socio-demographic and medical data. Regression models were applied for analysis. RESULTS: In total, 168 inpatients, 92 in 2008 and 76 in 2014, and 675 outpatients, 301 in 2008 and 374 in 2014, were included. The @entity1 characteristics of the samples were comparable. Prevalence of @entity5 among inpatients was 55  % in 2008 and 53  % in 2014, and among outpatients, 39 and 35  %, respectively. Inpatients reported average @entity158 intensity (0-10 numerical rating scale, NRS) of 3.60 (standard deviation, SD 1.84) (2008) and 4.08 (SD 2.11) (2014); prevalence of @entity158 was 52  % (2008) and 41  % (2014). For outpatients, average @entity158 intensity was 3.60 (SD 2.04) (2008) and 3.86 (SD 2.20) (2014); prevalence of @entity158 was 43  % (2008) and 37  % (2014). None of the differences were statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Unexpectedly, no improvement in @entity158 control was observed. Efforts are still needed to improve @entity5 management.
