The Elicited Verbal Pain Language of Childbirth: A Closer Look at Pain Assessment Through a Critical and Interpretive Review of the Literature

2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 134-148 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie Power ◽  
Fiona E. Bogossian ◽  
Jenny Strong ◽  
Roland Sussex
Keyword(s):  
Pain Assessment ◽  
Pain Perception ◽  
Cross Cultural ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Review Of The Literature ◽  
Pain Experience ◽  
Electronic Search ◽  
Dimensions Of Pain ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Affective Dimensions

OBJECTIVE:To provide a critical and interpretive review of the literature to investigate examples of pain assessment tools used in a childbirth context. Through these examples of pain assessment, the concept of elicited verbal pain language is introduced and explored.METHODS:Electronic search strategies were used to identify primary research regarding maternal reports of pain (during labor, postpartum and retrospectively), which were captured by standardized pain assessment tools.FINDINGS:The review revealed the physiological (the sensory and affective dimensions of pain, the intensity of pain, and the influence of parity on pain perception), psychological (the influence of maternal attitude, mood, and memory on pain perception), and ethnocultural (the impact of the ethnocultural context on pain perception) components of the pain experience. The strengths and limitations of pain assessment tools are highlighted. There were similarities in the reviewed studies’ approaches to pain assessment despite the cross-cultural representation of birth. Possible implications for cross-cultural pain assessment and communication are outlined.CONCLUSION:The question remains regarding the appropriateness of implementing standardized pain assessment tools across birth context. An ongoing critique of pain assessment may inform the provision of better care overall for birthing women in multicultural societies.

scholarly journals Integrating Cognitive and Affective Dimensions of Pain Experience into Health Professions Education

2011 ◽  
Vol 16 (6) ◽  
pp. 421-426 ◽  
Author(s):  
Beth B Murinson ◽  
Lina Mezei ◽  
Elizabeth Nenortas
Keyword(s):  
Emotional Development ◽  
Medical Knowledge ◽  
Clinical Excellence ◽  
Health Professions ◽  
Clinical Settings ◽  
Pain Experience ◽  
Medical Experience ◽  
Challenges And Opportunities ◽  
Dimensions Of Pain ◽  
Affective Dimensions

Pain is prevalent in clinical settings, and yet it is relatively under-represented in the education of most students in the health professions. Because pain includes both sensory-discriminative and affective features, teaching students about pain presents unique challenges and opportunities. The present article describes the evolution of a new blueprint for clinical excellence that, among other competencies, incorporates a need for the emotional development of clinical trainees. The framework has been applied to the development and implementation of two new courses in pain. The first course is designed to provide a comprehensive foundation of medical knowledge regarding pain, while integratively introducing students to the affective dimensions of pain. The second course is designed to enhance students’ appreciation for the protean effects of pain through use of the humanities to represent medical experience. It is concluded that, to be most effective, fostering the emotional development of trainees in the health professions necessitates the incorporation of affect-focused learning objectives, educational tasks and assessment methods.

scholarly journals A Cross-sectional Feasibility Study Testing the Use of Abstract Animations for the Communication and Assessment of Pain (Preprint)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles Jonassaint ◽  
Nema Rao ◽  
Alex Sciuto ◽  
Galen Switzer ◽  
Laura De Castro ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Neuropathic Pain ◽  
Pain Assessment ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Assessment Method ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Mcgill Pain Questionnaire ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Pain Experience ◽  
Paindetect Questionnaire

BACKGROUND Pain is the most common medical symptom requiring care, yet the current methods for assessing pain are sorely inadequate. Pain assessment tools either take too long to complete for point of care use or are too simplistic to capture the dynamic pain experience. OBJECTIVE To address this, we developed Painimation, a novel tool that uses graphic visualizations and animations instead of words or numeric scales to assess pain quality, intensity, and course. This study examines the utility of abstract animations as a measure of pain. METHODS Painimation was evaluated in a chronic pain medicine clinic. Eligible patients were receiving treatment for pain and reported pain more days than not for at least 3 months. Using a tablet computer, participating patients completed the Painimation instrument, the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), and the PainDETECT questionnaire for neuropathic symptoms. RESULTS Participants (N = 207), completed Painimation and indicated it was useful for describing their pain (mean=4.04/5 on a usefulness scale), and 154 out of 196 participants (79%) agreed or strongly agreed that they would use Painimation to communicate with their providers. Animations selected corresponded with pain adjectives endorsed on the MPQ. Further, selection of the electrifying animation was associated with self-reported neuropathic pain (r=.16, P=.03), similar to the association between neuropathic pain and PainDETECT (r=.17, P=.03). Painimation was associated with PainDETECT (r=.35, P<.001). CONCLUSIONS Using animations may be a faster and more patient-centered method for assessing pain and is not limited by age, literacy level, or language; however, more data are needed to assess the validity of this approach. Painimation needs testing in a more homogenous pain population to validate animations as a pain assessment method.

scholarly journals The Impact of Pain Assessment on Critically Ill Patients’ Outcomes: A Systematic Review

2015 ◽  
Vol 2015 ◽  
pp. 1-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evanthia Georgiou ◽  
Maria Hadjibalassi ◽  
Ekaterini Lambrinou ◽  
Panayiota Andreou ◽  
Elizabeth D. E. Papathanassoglou
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Pain Assessment ◽  
Critically Ill Patients ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
The Impact

In critically ill patients, pain is a major problem. Efficient pain management depends on a systematic, comprehensive assessment of pain. We aimed to review and synthesize current evidence on the impact of a systematic approach to pain assessment on critically ill patients’ outcomes. A systematic review of published studies (CINAHL, PUBMED, SCOPUS, EMBASE, and COCHRANE databases) with predetermined eligibility criteria was undertaken. Methodological quality was assessed by the EPHPP quality assessment tool. A total of 10 eligible studies were identified. Due to big heterogeneity, quantitative synthesis was not feasible. Most studies indicated the frequency, duration of pain assessment, and types of pain assessment tools. Methodological quality assessment yielded “strong” ratings for 5/10 and “weak” ratings for 3/10 studies. Implementation of systematic approaches to pain assessment appears to associate with more frequent documented reports of pain and more efficient decisions for pain management. There was evidence of favorable effects on pain intensity, duration of mechanical ventilation, length of ICU stay, mortality, adverse events, and complications. This systematic review demonstrates a link between systematic pain assessment and outcome in critical illness. However, the current level of evidence is insufficient to draw firm conclusions. More high quality randomized clinical studies are needed.

scholarly journals O39 Unidimensional and functional pain assessment tools in postoperative adult patients: a systematic review of their development and utility

2021 ◽  
Vol 108 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
R M Baamer ◽  
A Iqbal ◽  
D N Lobo ◽  
R D Knaggs ◽  
N A Levy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Measurement Error ◽  
Postoperative Pain ◽  
Pain Assessment ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Health Measurement ◽  
Functional Pain ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Quality Evidence

Abstract Introduction The Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), Verbal descriptor scale, and faces pain scale are used to measure postoperative pain in adults. However, their utility in this population has not been reviewed systematically. We aimed to summarise and appraise the evidence relating to the measurement properties of unidimensional tools when used for this population and to identify available tools assessing the impact of pain on the restoration of function. Method Four databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO) were searched up to August 2020 for relevant studies. Two reviewers independently screened articles and assessed risk of bias using the COensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist. Result Thirty-one studies were included. Only one study included an objective pain score; a tool assessing pain interference with function and reported low-quality evidence for construct validity. Studies looked at unidimensional tools were underpinned by low or very low-quality evidence for reliability, and all displayed a low quality of evidence of indeterminate responsiveness. Measurement error was only reported for VAS in one study of moderate quality. Interpretability results were available only for VAS and NRS. Feasibility results varied based on the included population. Conclusion Despite the extensive use of unidimensional tools, there is no evidence to suggest that any of these tools has superior measurement properties for postoperative pain. Therefore, future studies should be prioritised to assess their validity, measurement error and responsiveness. Validation studies of pain assessment tools that promote function are needed. Take-home Message Take home message: Functional pain scores should be assessed and validated for postoperative pain.

How Should We Assess Pain: Do Patients Prefer a Quantitative or Qualitative Scale? A Study of Patient Preferences

2020 ◽  
pp. 104990912094559
Author(s):  
Shagufta Firdous ◽  
Andrea Berger ◽  
Waqas Jehangir ◽  
Carlos Fernandez ◽  
Bertrand Behm ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Visual Analog Scale ◽  
Pain Assessment ◽  
Subjective Experience ◽  
Pain Perception ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Pearson Correlation ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Analog Scale ◽  
Numeric Pain Rating Scale ◽  
The Difference

Background: Pain perception is a subjective experience and is influenced by a variety of factors. Pain assessment tools, included the numeric pain rating scale (NRS) and the visual analog scale (VAS). A VAS qualitative (VASQ) scale asks patients their current pain level along a continuum of “Good Day,” “Average Day,” or “Bad Day.” We had patients complete both scales and asked them their preference and reason for their choice. Methods: We identified patients 18 years of age and older, seen by Palliative medicine at Geisinger, who had cancer-associated pain of at least one-month duration. Patients filled out the study questionnaire composed of 2 questions. Characteristics of patients who preferred the VASQ were compared to those who preferred the NRS using a 2-sample t tests or Wilcoxon rank-sum tests and Pearson χ2 or Fisher exact tests. The relationship between the NRS and the VASQ used the Pearson correlation coefficient. Results: One hundred forty-six patients completed the questionnaire, 52.1% were female; 63.7% preferred the NRS, 31.5% preferred the VASQ. Patients who preferred the NRS reported a higher NRS rating than patients who preferred the VASQ (mean NRS rating of 6.0 compared to 5.3) but the difference was not statistically significant ( P = .1531). Visual analog scale qualitative ratings were higher among patients who preferred the NRS, but the difference was not statistically different (mean rating of 5.2 vs 4.8, P = .3669). Conclusion: Patients preferred the NRS over VASQ for pain assessment. Patients tend to rate their pain at a higher level when using NRS compared to VASQ.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document