This descriptive study identifies the availability of multi-disciplinary chronic pain services for cancer-related pain in England, suggesting significant gaps in service provision.
Introduction Prevalence rates for cancer-related pain are 40-50%. Provision of multi-disciplinary chronic pain services for those with cancer-related pain is poorly understood. Aim To identify provision of multi-disciplinary chronic pain services for those with cancer-related pain across England. Methods Acute/Hospital and Community NHS Trusts in England ( n = 190) were sent Freedom of Information requests asking if a multi-disciplinary chronic pain service was provided by the Trust, and numbers of people seen in previous 24 months with (a) tumour-related pain and (b) cancer-related late effects pain or pain caused by cancer treatments. Demographic information was requested. If no response was received within 10 weeks, a follow up request was sent. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Results In total, 171 NHS Trusts responded. Almost half, ( n = 74, 43.3%) reported providing a multi-disciplinary chronic pain service. Of these, 17 (23.0%) were able to provide attendance data for people with tumour-related pain and eight (10.8%) with late effects pain. Demographic information could be provided by seven (9.5%) Trusts for those with tumour-related pain and four (5.4%) for late effects pain. The main reason Trusts could not provide demographic information was because such data were not routinely collected. Conclusions People with cancer-related pain appear to have limited access to multi-disciplinary chronic pain support in England. However, lack of standardised methods of coding and recording cancer-related pain as reasons for attending multi-disciplinary chronic pain services mean reporting accurate figures is challenging. It is essential that there is an accurate reporting system so the scale of cancer-related pain can be understood to help guide the provision and development of services, education and research.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Armoogum et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: