Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 826

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Physician Attitudes and Practice in Cancer Pain Management: A Survey From the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group

Von Roenn, Jamie H., Cleeland, Charles S., Gonin, Rene, Hatfield, Alan K., Pandya, Kishan J.·1993·Annals of Internal Medicine

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) conducted a groupwide survey to determine the amount of knowledge about cancer pain and its treatment among physicians practicing in ECOG-affiliated institutions and to determine the methods of pain control being used by these physicians. DESIGN: Survey. SETTING: A questionnaire was sent to all ECOG physicians with patient care responsibilities (medical oncologists, hematologists, surgeons, and radiation therapists), practicing in university institutions, Community Clinical Oncology Program (CCOP) institutions, and Cooperative Group Outreach Programs (CGOP) institutions. MEASUREMENTS: A physician cancer pain questionnaire developed by the Pain Research Group at the University of Wisconsin was used. The questionnaire was designed to assess physicians' estimates of the magnitude of pain as a specific problem for cancer patients, their perceptions of the adequacy of cancer pain management, and their report of how they manage pain in their own practice setting. RESULTS: The study analyzed responses to 897 of 1800 surveys. In regard to the use of analgesics for cancer pain in the United States, 86% felt that the majority of patients with pain were undermedicated. Only 51% believed pain control in their own practice setting was good or very good; 31% would wait until the patient's prognosis was 6 months or less before they would start maximal analgesia. Adjuvants and prophylactic side-effect management should have been used more frequently in the treatment plan. Concerns about side-effect management and tolerance were reported as limiting analgesic prescribing. Poor pain assessment was rated by 76% of physicians as the single most important barrier to adequate pain management. Other barriers included patient reluctance to report pain and patient reluctance to take analgesics (both by 62%) as well as physician reluctance to prescribe opioids (61%). CONCLUSIONS: Professional education needs to focus on the proper assessment of pain, focus on the management of side effects, and focus on the use of adjuvant medications. A better understanding of the pharmacology of opioid analgesics is also needed. Physicians also need to educate patients to report pain and to effectively use the medications that are prescribed for pain management.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.7326/0003-4819-119-2-199307150-00005

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 826

Metadata

Authors
Von Roenn, J. H., Cleeland, C. S., Gonin, R., Hatfield, A. K., & Pandya, K. J.
Venue
Annals of Internal Medicine
Published
1993-07-15
Volume
119
Issue
2
Pages
121-126
ISSN
  • 0003-4819 (ISSN-L)
  • 1539-3704
OpenAlex
W1604331566
Cited by
826
References
0
FWCI
23.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Physician Attitudes and Practice in Cancer Pain Management: A Survey From the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.7326/0003-4819-119-2-199307150-00005
The paper
Von Roenn, J. H., Cleeland, C. S., Gonin, R., Hatfield, A. K., & Pandya, K. J. (1993). Physician Attitudes and Practice in Cancer Pain Management: A Survey From the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Annals of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-119-2-199307150-00005

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.