Perceptions of pain medication in the elderly.
ABSTRACT Individual interpretation of pain can vary among patients as well as in certain populations. Patients' and health care providers' assessment of pain and its treatment modalities can affect goals of therapy and overall success of treatment. Exploring these related perceptions will allow a more effective approach to the management of pain in the elderly population and improve the use of appropriate pain medications. This literature review will provide a better understanding of the associated emotional, physical, and perceptional aspects of pain within the elderly population and discuss barriers associated with the effective treatment of pain. This knowledge will serve as a resource for geriatric practitioners to select and provide appropriate therapeutic interventions for pain management in the elderly population.
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: With the shifting age demographics of the U.S. population, more psychologists will be asked to provide clinical services to older adults. Given the high prevalence of persistent pain in aging, in many cases this will mean providing empirically supported interventions for pain and the interference it creates. The purpose of this review is to provide a broad overview of the scope and impact of persistent pain in older people and to discuss mechanisms by which persistent geriatric pain can lead to suffering and disability. We consider the unique context of pain in older adulthood and review differences between older and younger people in terms of pain perception, the social network, beliefs about pain, pain-related coping, and adherence to pain medication. Finally, we discuss special issues affecting pain management in older adults, including dementia, polypharmacy, and barriers to accessing adequate pain care. This review also highlights a need for greater provider training in pain management to meet the needs of a changing U.S. population. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved).American Psychologist 02/2014; 69(2):197-207. DOI:10.1037/a0035794 · 6.87 Impact Factor