Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Pain Measurement”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

The challenges of pain measurement in critically ill young children: a comprehensive review.

This article addresses the issues in measuring pain in critically ill children, provides a comprehensive review of the pain measures for children aged between 0 and 3 years, and discusses their applicability to this group of children. When children are critically ill, pain can only exacerbate the stress response that already exists, to the extent that homeostasis cannot be maintained. Severity of illness is thus likely to affect physiologic and behavioural pain responses that would normally be demonstrated in healthy children. The problem of differentiating pain from other constructs adds to the complexity of assessing pain in non-verbal children. A pain measure to be useful clinically must be adapted to the developmental age of the target population. Search of electronic databases and other electronic sources was supplemented by hand review of relevant journals to identify published and unpublished pain measures for use in children aged between 0 and 3 years. Twenty eight pain measures were identified in the literature; 11 for neonates only, 11 for children aged between 0 and 3 years, and six for children more than 12 months. These measures vary in relation to their psychometric properties, clinical utility and the context in which the study was performed. These measures may not be suitable for the critically ill young child, because the items included were derived from observations of healthy or moderately sick children, and may not reflect pain behaviour in those who are critically ill. It is therefore recommended to develop new pain scales for this population of compromised children.

Age Factors↗

Measurement of pain: patient preference does not confound pain measurement.

Chronic pain patients reported pain intensity on each of 3 pain intensity scales, the visual analog, numerical and adjectival scales, and then ranked the scales in order of perceived best communication of pain intensity. All patients were able to complete an adjectival scale but 11% were unable to complete a visual analog scale and 2% failed at a numeric scale. The intensity of the pain ratings on the 3 scales were significantly correlated and there were no reliable differences in reported intensity as a function of preference. Pain intensity was reliably higher on each scale for depressed-anxious patients as compared to non-depressed/non-anxious patients. Patients completing all 3 scales indicated a significant preference for the adjectival scale but the basis for this preference did not appear related to sex, etiology of pain, affective variables nor selected psychological variables. These data indicate that pain scale preference does not influence pain intensity report. Nevertheless, there are some clinical situations in which a numeric scale is likely to yield a better measure of pain intensity.

Chronic Disease↗

The use of a self-reported pain measure, a nurse-reported pain measure and the PAINAD in nursing home residents with moderate and severe dementia: a validation study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the construct validity of three measures of pain and to determine a categorical version of the Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia (PAINAD) scale. DESIGN: Validation study determining the concurrent validity of a self-reported pain score (SRPS), a nurse-reported pain score (NRPS) and the PAINAD; the divergent validity of the three pain measures with the Abbreviated Mental Test (AMT) and the Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia (CSDD). SETTING AND SUBJECTS: eighty-eight nursing home residents with moderate and severe dementia. METHODS: Residents were asked to rate the severity of their pain in the previous week on a verbal descriptor scale (VDS). Nurses rated the resident's pain on a VDS, scored the PAINAD scale and the CSDD scale. Research assistants administered the AMT. RESULTS: The PAINAD correlated with the NRPS (Kendall's tau [tau] = 0.842); both scales correlated poorly with the SRPS (tau = 0.304 for both correlations). The PAINAD was significantly different for each level of the NRPS. On the SRPS, the PAINAD for the group with moderate+ pain was significantly different from the groups with mild pain and no pain. There was a difference between the SRPS and the NRPS when residents were depressed, but no difference when they were not. Our categorical version of the PAINAD showed good agreement with the NRPS. CONCLUSION: The NRPS and the PAINAD measure pain differently from the SRPS, especially in the presence of depression. Our categorical version of the PAINAD shows good agreement with the NRPS.

Aged↗

Reproducibility of pain measurement and pain perception.

The reproducibility of both the conscious experience of pain and the reproducibility of psychophysical assessments of pain remain critical, yet poorly characterized factors in pain research and treatment. To assess the reproducibility of both the pain experience and two methods of pain assessment, 15 subjects evaluated experimental heat pain during four weekly sessions. In each session, both brief (5s) and prolonged (90s) heat stimuli were utilized to determine effects of stimulus duration on reproducibility. Multiple presentations of the brief heat stimuli in each session were used to evaluate effects of response averaging. Both visual analog scales (VAS) and randomized verbal descriptor scales (VDS) were employed to better distinguish variations in the pain experience from variations in pain scale usage. Subjects also rated the intensity of visual stimuli in order to provide an independent assessment of the session-to-session variation in the use of both types of scales. Within-subjects analyses revealed that ratings of visual stimuli exhibited significantly less session-to-session variation than ratings of heat pain. Thus, pain perceptions were more variable than perceptions of visual stimuli after controlling for session-to-session variations in scale usage. Comparisons between scales indicated that intensity ratings acquired with the VAS had significantly smaller session-to-session variation than those acquired with the VDS, although VDS ratings were spread across a larger range of the scale. For both scales, analyses of the effects of stimulus averaging and stimulus duration revealed that averaging multiple assessments of the same stimulus substantially reduces session-to-session variation and that multiple assessments of brief stimuli produce responses which are more reproducible than a single presentation of a prolonged stimulus. However, the VAS was significantly more sensitive to small differences in perceived pain intensity and pain unpleasantness, and did not exhibit some of the order effects present with the VDS. Taken together, these results indicate that the reproducibility of psychophysical ratings of pain can be maximized: (1) by averaging responses to multiple, brief stimuli; (2) by providing subjects with a training period distinct from the study period; and (3) by ensuring that interpretation of scale parameters remains constant over time. Thus, although the experiences of both experimental and clinical pain are highly variable, pain assessment procedures can be structured to minimize session-to-session variability.

Adult↗

[Development of a Norwegian pain questionnaire for pain measurement].

This study was undertaken to develop a multidimensional instrument in the Norwegian language to measure pain. The McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ) was used as a model, since it is a valid and reliable tool for pain measurement in English speaking countries. A series of steps were taken to develop a Norwegian pain questionnaire: 1) Words descriptive of pain were derived from 95 subjects (patients, students and health personnel). 2) Ten subjects allocated pain words into groups. 3) 36 college students validated the word groupings. 4) 72 patients graded the words contained in each group according to intensity. 5) A test of reliability of group items was performed. The study demonstrated that there are many words in Norwegian to describe pain. The Norwegian pain questionnaire came to contain 106 descriptors of pain placed in 18 groups. We demonstrated the validity of the word groupings and the reliability of group items. The actual value of the Norwegian pain questionnaire as a measuring instrument has not yet been documented.

Evaluation Studies as Topic↗

Pain measurement and pain behavior.

This study examined relationships between chronic pain patients' ratings of pain severity, and other patient ratings about severity of associated impairment, and a series of behavioral measures of health care utilization and activity patterns. Prior to being evaluated, a sample of 150 chronic pain patients completed diary forms on which they recorded severity of pain on a 0-10 scale. Subjects were divided into high-medium-low on mean pain ratings, and were compared on the other measures obtained either from diary forms or at time of evaluation. Patient generated statements about severity of pain and extent of functional impairment from pain interrelated positively. However, these measures showed few relationships to medication consumption, health care utilization, diary recorded activity level, or to patient reported frequency counts of engaging in a set of commonplace activities. The results were interpreted to suggest that, in chronic pain, there may be a questionable relationship between what people say about their pain and what they do. Accordingly, the evaluation of chronic pain should include analyses of patient behavior.

Activities of Daily Living↗

Measuring pain presence and intensity in nursing home residents.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the extent of agreement between nursing home residents' (or their proxies') reports of pain presence and intensity as derived from an interview questionnaire and the Minimum Data Set (MDS) nearest to the interview date. DESIGN: Cross-sectional comparison of the 2 data sources on pain measurements. SETTING: Nursing homes included in evaluation projects of EverCare program and Minnesota Senior Health Options. PARTICIPANTS: Nursing home residents (n = 3100) were grouped based on the type of respondent answering the interview questionnaire: resident, family proxy, or staff proxy. MEASUREMENTS: We used kappa statistics and multinomial logit regression to examine agreement between the interview questionnaire and the MDS on pain presence and intensity. RESULTS: Presence of pain was reported 1.3 to 1.8 times more often on the questionnaire, depending on the respondent group. Agreement on the presence of pain was slight to fair (kappa = 0.17 to 0.28) between the MDS and the questionnaire. There was slight agreement on pain intensity (kappa = 0.13 to 0.18). The family proxy respondent group showed the largest discrepancy between questionnaire and the MDS in reporting of pain presence and intensity. The staff proxy respondent group had better agreement on pain intensity than did the other respondent groups, but it achieved only slight agreement (kappa = 0.18). CONCLUSIONS: Detecting and quantifying pain in nursing home residents is complex. Pain information is best obtained directly from residents; observations should be standardized. The MDS should be revised accordingly.

Aged, 80 and over↗

Construct validity of the parents' postoperative pain measure.

OBJECTIVES: Pain assessment can be a challenging task for parents, who increasingly provide the care for their children after surgery. This research provides evidence of the construct validity of the Parents' Postoperative Pain Measure (PPPM), a 15-item behavioral scale. METHODS: Study 1 examined the ability of scores on the PPPM to discriminate between pain and anxiety in a sample of 75 children (30 girls) between the ages of 7 and 12 years undergoing day surgery. Study 2 examined the sensitivity of scores on the PPPM to analgesic intervention among a sample of 28 children (7 girls) between the ages of 7 and 12 years undergoing day surgery. RESULTS: In Study 1, scores on the PPPM closely followed the pattern of children's self-reported pain intensity and not state-related anxiety. Results from Study 2 showed that scores on the PPPM, like children's self-reported pain intensity ratings, were sensitive to analgesic intervention. DISCUSSION: The results of these studies provide further support for the construct validity of the PPPM and confirm that the measure is a valid pain assessment tool for use by parents at home following children's surgeries.

Child↗

Selection of pain measurement tools.

BACKGROUND: Although pain measurement tools have been available for a number of years their reliability and validity cannot be presumed because none holds psychometric stability in every environment. To select the most appropriate tool for an individual patient, nurses need to be aware of those available and their limitations. This article discusses the use of selected tools with specific patient groups. CONCLUSION: A variety of tools are currently used for measuring pain, and each one has its merits and limitations. It is difficult to choose the most suitable tool for clinical settings in which a standard tool is to be used. Patient populations are diverse and can include adults of any age, with acute, chronic or malignant pain and cognitive or physical impairments of varying origin. There will be occasions when the tool used is inappropriate for an individual patient or a patient cannot complete the tool. Patients and nurses need to be educated about pain measurement tools to ensure their successful use.

Acute Disease↗

Study of experimental pain measures and nociceptive reflex in chronic pain patients and normal subjects.

This study evaluates (i) the effect of heterotopic chronic pain on various experimental pain measures, (ii) the relationship between experimental pain measures and chronic pain symptomatology assessment, and (iii) the influence of the various pain aetiologies on experimental pain measures. Fifty-three chronic pain patients were compared to 17 pain-free subjects with the following psychophysical and physiological indices: pain threshold (PTh), pain tolerance (PTol), verbal estimation of intensity and unpleasantness (intensity scale, IS; unpleasantness scale, US), threshold for intensity and unpleasantness (ITh and UTh), lower limb RIII nociceptive reflex (RIIITh and RIII frequency of occurrence). Chronic pain syndromes included neuropathic pain (n = 12), iodopathic pain (n = 12), myofascial syndromes (n = 9), headache (n = 9), and miscellaneous pain (n = 11). Chronic pain symptomatology was assessed with a visual analogue scale (VAS), a French MPQ adaptation (QDSA), Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), Spielberger State Trait Inventory (STAI) and Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI). No significant difference was observed between chronic pain patients and pain-free control groups and between patient subgroups for PTh, PTol and RIIITh. No significant correlation was found between experimental pain measures and clinical pain, anxiety or depression scores. However, the chronic pain patients had a higher threshold for unpleasantness and judged the suprathreshold stimuli significantly less intense and less unpleasant than the control group. These results are discussed in relation to diffuse noxious inhibitory controls and the adaptation level theory of chronic pain experience.

Adult↗

Use of the McGill Pain Questionnaire to measure pain: a meta-analysis.

A meta-analysis of 51 studies was done to estimate normative mean McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ) scores and to assess pain quality and pain intensity as measured by the MPQ in 3,624 subjects with seven painful conditions. Across the painful conditions, all of the estimated normative mean scores were no more than 50% of the maximum score, suggesting that scores may be skewed to the left. Although the estimated normative mean scores were similar among the seven painful conditions, higher affective scores appeared to differentiate chronic painful conditions from acute painful conditions. Of the 78 MPQ words that describe pain quality, only 19 were selected by more than 20% of the subjects. Data reported in the majority of these studies were inadequate to test for differences in scores or word selection pattern by the seven painful conditions.

Affect↗

Pain measurement in the elderly: a review.

Measurement of pain in the elderly is an issue that has received limited attention. The purpose of this review was to analyze and synthesize research findings from 1975 to 1999 that are related to pain measurement in the elderly. Based on best-evidence synthesis criteria, the review led to the selection of 15 studies. These studies used a descriptive and quantitative analytic approach and were not based on a theoretical framework. Comparison of selected pain measurement tools was incorporated in 40% of the included studies. Substantial gaps in knowledge were identified; namely, these included determining the reliability and validity of selected tools for the institutionalized or community-dwelling elder; modifying instruments to overcome barriers such as communication issues, cultural diversity, or cognitive dysfunction; and expanding the scope of pain measurement to other dimensions of the pain experience.

Aged↗

Development and preliminary validation of a pain measure specific to neuropathic pain: the Neuropathic Pain Scale.

Neuropathic pain syndromes are commonly seen in clinical practice and are frequently used as pain models in testing new therapies. However, no pain scale exists with the primary purpose to measure pain in neuropathic syndromes. This paper describes the development and preliminary validation of the Neuropathic Pain Scale (NPS), which is designed to assess distinct pain qualities associated with neuropathic pain. Results support the discriminant and predictive validity of the NPS items. Moreover, the NPS items appear to be sensitive to treatments known to impact neuropathic pain. These findings provide support for the further development of the NPS.

Diabetic Neuropathies↗

Pain measurement scales: a comparison of the visual analogue and faces rating scales in measuring pressure ulcer pain.

OBJECTIVE: Although different pain scales often have been used interchangeably, it is not known whether interchanging them is appropriate. The purpose of this report was twofold: to better understand the statistical properties of the Faces Rating Scale (FRS) so it can be used appropriately in clinical settings and to describe the mathematical relationship between the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and the FRS when they are used to quantify pressure ulcer pain in hospitalized elderly patients. DESIGN: Secondary data analyses were performed as part of a cross-sectional study. SETTING AND SUBJECTS: A quality assurance program was undertaken to evaluate pressure ulcer pain perceived by elderly hospitalized patients. All patients without aphasia participated. INSTRUMENTS: The VAS used was a 0 to 100 mm horizontal line demonstrated to have ratio scale properties with high validity and reproducibility, and the FRS used was 6 faces ordered horizontally from smiling to crying, labeled 0 to 5 beneath each face, respectively. METHODS: Nonlinear least squares regression with a Gauss-Newton iterative procedure was used. RESULTS: Among models with cubic, quadratic, and linear terms, only the quadratic term was significant (P <.05). With use of the equation derived, VAS = 3.33*(FRS)(2), the resulting reliability coefficient was r = 0.92. CONCLUSIONS: The nonlinear relationship indicated high reliability between VAS and FRS for pain assessment in populations with diminished verbal and abstract thinking abilities. For readers who would like to translate results from one scale to another, a quadratic equation is provided.

Adult↗

Comparison of pain measures in surgical patients.

Numerous instruments have been developed for the measurement of pain with various clinical populations. This study was designed to compare pain measures for research in a sample of postoperative patients. The Brief Pain Inventory--Short Form (BPI-SF) was administered along with the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ) and two visual analogue scales, one for pain while at rest (VAS-R) and one for pain upon movement (VAS-M), in random order, to 115 hospitalized patients twice following their surgery. An additional 29 patients completed the instruments once. Correlations between the visual analogue scales, BPI-SF, and SF-MPQ ranged from .33 to .76 (p < .01), suggesting that the instruments measure different aspects of pain and that instructions can influence the results. Recommendations for the selection of pain measures in patients experiencing acute pain and for future research are described.

Adult↗

The sensitivity of the premature infant pain profile - PIPP to measure pain in hospitalized neonates.

AIM: The present study uses an Icelandic translation of the original version of the Premature Infant Pain Profile (PIPP) in order to assess its accuracy and sensitivity to the measure of pain in hospitalized neonates in Iceland. The PIPP is a composite tool developed to assess acute pain in preterm and term neonates. METHODS: A crossover design, with a sample of 24 neonates, was used on three, routinely occurring events in the neonatal intensive care unit, where neonates were their own controls. The three events were baseline, non-pain and pain event. Neonates were independently assessed for their pain, using the Icelandic translation of the PIPP, at the bedside. RESULTS: Repeated measures analysis yielded a statistically significant main effect for the three events (pain, non-pain and baseline), thus differentiating pain from non-pain and baseline events (F = 57.11; P < 0.0001). Pair-wise comparisons were subsequently carried out and the results show that PIPP scores at the pain event (11.72) were significantly lower (P < 0.0001) than that at the non-pain event (6.04) and that at the baseline event (3.54; P < 0.0001). The PIPP scores at the non-pain event were also significantly higher than that at the baseline event (P < 0.0001). These results suggest that the PIPP measure is sensitive to a painful event and differentiates between stress and pain in a clinical context across linguistic barriers. The findings also revealed almost a complete correlation between the PIPP scores of the two independent nurse raters at all events (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Therefore the authors conclude that the Icelandic translation of the PIPP qualifies as a satisfying measure of pain responses in Icelandic neonates and can be recommended for use by clinicians and researchers. More research is, however, needed to further the accuracy and validity of the PIPP measure in general to assess pain in neonates in comparison to other pain measures.

Cross-Over Studies↗