Lenora J Duhn1, Jennifer M Medves. 1. Women's and Children's Programs, Kingston General Hospital, Ontario, Canada. duhnl@kgh,kari.net
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine the issue of pain assessment in infants by acquiring all available published pain assessment tools and evaluating their reported reliability, validity, clinical utility, and feasibility. DESIGN AND METHODS: A systematic integrative review of the literature was conducted using the following databases: MEDLINE and CINAHL (through February 2004), and Health and Psychosocial Instruments, and Cochrane Systematic Reviews (through 2003). MeSH headings searched included "pain measurement," with limit of "newborn infant"; "infant newborn"; and "pain perception." SUBJECTS: Thirty-five neonatal pain assessment tools were found and evaluated using predetermined criteria. The critique consisted of a structured comparison of the classification and dimensions measured. Further, the population tested and reports of reliability, validity, clinical utility, and feasibility were reviewed. RESULTS: Of the 35 measures reviewed, 18 were unidimensional and 17 were multidimensional. Six of the multidimensional measures were published as abstracts only, were not published at all, or the original work could not be obtained. None of the existing instruments fulfilled all criteria for an ideal measure; many require further psychometric testing. CONCLUSIONS: When choosing a pain assessment tool, one must also consider the infant population and setting, and the type of pain experienced. The decision should be made after carefully considering the existing published options. Confidence that the instrument will assess pain in a reproducible way is essential, and must be demonstrated with validity and reliability testing. Using an untested instrument is not recommended, and should only occur within a research protocol, with appropriate ethics and parental approval. Because pain is a multidimensional phenomenon, well-tested multidimensional instruments may be preferable.
PURPOSE: To examine the issue of pain assessment in infants by acquiring all available published pain assessment tools and evaluating their reported reliability, validity, clinical utility, and feasibility. DESIGN AND METHODS: A systematic integrative review of the literature was conducted using the following databases: MEDLINE and CINAHL (through February 2004), and Health and Psychosocial Instruments, and Cochrane Systematic Reviews (through 2003). MeSH headings searched included "pain measurement," with limit of "newborn infant"; "infant newborn"; and "pain perception." SUBJECTS: Thirty-five neonatal pain assessment tools were found and evaluated using predetermined criteria. The critique consisted of a structured comparison of the classification and dimensions measured. Further, the population tested and reports of reliability, validity, clinical utility, and feasibility were reviewed. RESULTS: Of the 35 measures reviewed, 18 were unidimensional and 17 were multidimensional. Six of the multidimensional measures were published as abstracts only, were not published at all, or the original work could not be obtained. None of the existing instruments fulfilled all criteria for an ideal measure; many require further psychometric testing. CONCLUSIONS: When choosing a pain assessment tool, one must also consider the infant population and setting, and the type of pain experienced. The decision should be made after carefully considering the existing published options. Confidence that the instrument will assess pain in a reproducible way is essential, and must be demonstrated with validity and reliability testing. Using an untested instrument is not recommended, and should only occur within a research protocol, with appropriate ethics and parental approval. Because pain is a multidimensional phenomenon, well-tested multidimensional instruments may be preferable.
Authors: Lidwine B Mokkink; Caroline B Terwee; Paul W Stratford; Jordi Alonso; Donald L Patrick; Ingrid Riphagen; Dirk L Knol; Lex M Bouter; Henrica C W de Vet Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2009-02-24 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Jörg Martin; Anja Heymann; Katrin Bäsell; Ralf Baron; Rolf Biniek; Hartmut Bürkle; Peter Dall; Christine Dictus; Verena Eggers; Ingolf Eichler; Lothar Engelmann; Lars Garten; Wolfgang Hartl; Ulrike Haase; Ralf Huth; Paul Kessler; Stefan Kleinschmidt; Wolfgang Koppert; Franz-Josef Kretz; Heinz Laubenthal; Guenter Marggraf; Andreas Meiser; Edmund Neugebauer; Ulrike Neuhaus; Christian Putensen; Michael Quintel; Alexander Reske; Bernard Roth; Jens Scholz; Stefan Schröder; Dierk Schreiter; Jürgen Schüttler; Gerhard Schwarzmann; Robert Stingele; Peter Tonner; Philip Tränkle; Rolf Detlef Treede; Tomislav Trupkovic; Michael Tryba; Frank Wappler; Christian Waydhas; Claudia Spies Journal: Ger Med Sci Date: 2010-02-02