ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

Qualitative Study of Refractory Dyspnea

Updated on February 10, 2017

Introduction

The study selected for review covers the effects of nebulized opioids on refractory dyspnea in a 10-year-old boy. This paper will examine the study with regard to data collection methods and ethical treatment of the human subject involved. This study is representative of most in this area of research insomuch as it is a case study with limited variable control. As such, there is a nothing conclusive that can be said about the effectiveness of nebulized opioids as compared to other treatments for refractory dyspnea, and further research is required.

This paper will review the work published by Cohen and Dawson (2002) with regards to protection of human participants, data collection, data management, and findings / interpretations of the data.

Protection of Participants

The benefits of this treatment are purely palliative. Dyspnea is a problem affecting the quality of life in patients with end stage cystic fibrosis in which the lungs cannot oxygenate properly causing sensations of breathlessness and panic in the individual. These symptoms cause patients to feel anxiety and depression as they consistently feel as though they cannot get enough air. It is deemed important by medical professionals to lessen the suffering of these patients by researching ways to improve the symptoms of dyspnea.

The article makes no mention of informed consent or voluntary participation. The treatment itself was not done for the purpose of study, but to alleviate symptoms. Even so, it was a palliative treatment and the patient’s guardian was most likely made aware of the situation and gave permission. The guardian would also needed to give permission for the the patient’s information to be used in the study, though again, no mention is made of this. It is also not made clear if an institutional review board was involved in this study.

Data Collection

The research is a case study and as such, much of the data gathered in the study is qualitative, but tried to use quantitative data whenever possible to support the qualitative results. Nebulized morphine was administered in incremental doses ranging from 2.5 mg to 12.5 mg in a 10-year-old, 20-kg boy for three days until the patient’s death. After each dose of morphine, the following parameters were recorded: visual analog "dyspnea" scores, vital signs, venous blood gases, and blood levels of morphine. Patient was monitored for signs of physical or mental distress and was routinely asked to describe his comfort level.

Researchers’ rationale for collecting this data was in part due to a need to uphold the hippocratic oath and do no harm. Since the patient has a lung condition and opioids suppress respiratory function, the researchers had to be sure that the treatment was only alleviating the patient’s symptoms and not technically contributing to his death. The laboratory tests administered were partly to ensure the patient was not deteriorating as a result of the nebulized morphine. The stable blood chemical levels compared against the improved symptoms demonstrate the positive correlation between non-lethal opioid doses and diminished sensations of dyspnea.

The paper does not adequately explain the many variables at play such as the lateness with which treatment began. The ambiguous results of the study which could only show mild improvement may be due to beginning the treatment after sufficient damage to his breathing system had already occurred. There is no way to say, but the research makes no note of possible confounds.

Data Management and Analysis

This study makes very little mention of the rigors of analysis methods of the data management, which can be worrisome. At the same time, this study serves as a sort of proof of concept, attempting to document any indication that nebulized opioids are useful in treating refractory dyspnea. The condition and treatment occur rarely enough that there is little evidence on the subject, and the researches seem to be taking what they can get. While this is understandable, it still does not change the fact that very little scientific rigor is present with regard to drawing correlations or controlling for confounding variables.

Findings and Interpretations

The nebulized morphine was found to have a modest effect on the patient's dyspnea, with no significant differences found between the varying doses. Researches made several speculations as to why this “saturation effect” seems to have occurred. These findings, while simple, were presented in the article in a logical fashion. The researchers’ cautious interpretations of a modest effect are valid and accurately reflect what was observed, as does their discussion on potential extraneous factors which will help future studies by giving researchers an idea of what these could be.

These results offer support for the use of nebulized morphine as an effective palliative treatment for refractory dyspnea. The implications for the nursing community are relatively minor as it will not necessarily impact the way nurses do their jobs, however, the study’s place in the larger framework of palliative care for patients with cystic fibrosis may affect nurses as a shift from life-prolonging measures to palliative care may be seen. The debate between these two forms of care is pervasive throughout the medical community and affects nurses in many ways, including how they are taught, how they practice, and how administration forms policies.

No specific suggestions are made for future study. Rather, the researchers simply conclude that some form of further inquiry into the topic is needed in order to draw any sort of strong conclusion. They make no indication of what methods these potential studies should use.

Conclusion

Congruity between what is objectively observed and how the researcher chooses to interpret and report this data is paramount in scientific endeavor. Cohen and Dawson (2002) follow all reasonable scientific parameters as they observe the final days of a patient with the targeted condition for study and see minor improvement in his condition. They attempt to account for confounds by measuring vital signs and laboratory work to ensure that the medication is only doing the job intended for it. They report very little, which is appropriate for a study that observed very little effect. These observations are nevertheless important as they build on each other to lead to stronger scientific consensus.

References

Cohen, S. P., & Dawson, T. C. (2002). Nebulized morphine as a treatment for dyspnea in a child with cystic fibrosis. Pediatrics, 38, 110-113.

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No comments yet.

    working

    This website uses cookies

    As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

    For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

    Show Details
    Necessary
    HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
    LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
    Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
    AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
    HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
    Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
    CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
    Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
    Features
    Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
    Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
    Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
    PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
    MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
    Marketing
    Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
    Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
    Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
    Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
    Statistics
    Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
    ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
    Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)