Clara Scher1, Emily Petti2, Lauren Meador3, Janet H Van Cleave4, Eva Liang4, M Carrington Reid5. 1. Department of Psychiatry, Weill Cornell Medicine, White Plains, New York. 2. Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, New York; Department of Psychology, University of Maryland, Baltimore County, Baltimore, Maryland. 3. Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, New York. 4. New York University Rory Meyers College of Nursing, New York, New York. 5. Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, New York. Electronic address: mcr2004@med.cornell.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: One of the critical components in pain management is the assessment of pain. Multidimensional measurement tools capture multiple aspects of a patient's pain experience but can be cumbersome to administer in busy clinical settings. AIM: We conducted a systematic review to identify brief multidimensional pain assessment tools that nurses can use in both ambulatory and acute care settings. METHODS: We searched PUBMED/MEDLINE, PsychInfo, and CINAHL databases from January 1977 through December 2019. Eligible English-language articles were systematically screened and data were extracted independently by two raters. Main outcomes included the number and types of domains captured by each instrument (e.g., sensory, impact on function, temporal components) and tool characteristics (e.g., administration time, validity) that may affect instrument uptake in practice. RESULTS: Our search identified eight multidimensional assessment tools, all of which measured sensory or affective qualities of pain and its impact on functioning. Most tools measured impact of pain on affective functioning, mood, or enjoyment of life. One tool used ecological momentary assessment via a web-based app to assess pain symptoms. Time to administer the varying tools ranged from less than 2 minutes to 10 minutes, and evidence of validity was reported for seven of the eight tools. CONCLUSIONS: Our review identified eight multidimensional pain measurement tools that nurses can use in ambulatory or acute care settings to capture patients' experience of pain. The most important element in selecting a multidimensional pain measure, though, is that one tool is selected that best fits the practice and is used consistently over time.
BACKGROUND: One of the critical components in pain management is the assessment of pain. Multidimensional measurement tools capture multiple aspects of a patient's pain experience but can be cumbersome to administer in busy clinical settings. AIM: We conducted a systematic review to identify brief multidimensional pain assessment tools that nurses can use in both ambulatory and acute care settings. METHODS: We searched PUBMED/MEDLINE, PsychInfo, and CINAHL databases from January 1977 through December 2019. Eligible English-language articles were systematically screened and data were extracted independently by two raters. Main outcomes included the number and types of domains captured by each instrument (e.g., sensory, impact on function, temporal components) and tool characteristics (e.g., administration time, validity) that may affect instrument uptake in practice. RESULTS: Our search identified eight multidimensional assessment tools, all of which measured sensory or affective qualities of pain and its impact on functioning. Most tools measured impact of pain on affective functioning, mood, or enjoyment of life. One tool used ecological momentary assessment via a web-based app to assess pain symptoms. Time to administer the varying tools ranged from less than 2 minutes to 10 minutes, and evidence of validity was reported for seven of the eight tools. CONCLUSIONS: Our review identified eight multidimensional pain measurement tools that nurses can use in ambulatory or acute care settings to capture patients' experience of pain. The most important element in selecting a multidimensional pain measure, though, is that one tool is selected that best fits the practice and is used consistently over time.
Authors: Todd B Monroe; Sumathi K Misra; Ralf C Habermann; Mary S Dietrich; Ronald L Cowan; Sandra F Simmons Journal: Geriatr Gerontol Int Date: 2013-09-11 Impact factor: 2.730
Authors: Tito R Mendoza; Amylou C Dueck; Antonia V Bennett; Sandra A Mitchell; Bryce B Reeve; Thomas M Atkinson; Yuelin Li; Kathleen M Castro; Andrea Denicoff; Lauren J Rogak; Richard L Piekarz; Charles S Cleeland; Jeff A Sloan; Deborah Schrag; Ethan Basch Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2017-03-20 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Alessandro Liberati; Douglas G Altman; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Cynthia Mulrow; Peter C Gøtzsche; John P A Ioannidis; Mike Clarke; P J Devereaux; Jos Kleijnen; David Moher Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2009-07-21 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Erika Sirsch; Albert Lukas; Corinna Drebenstedt; Irmela Gnass; Marjan Laekeman; Kirsten Kopke; Thomas Fischer Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2019-10-24 Impact factor: 4.669
Authors: Roger Chou; Debra B Gordon; Oscar A de Leon-Casasola; Jack M Rosenberg; Stephen Bickler; Tim Brennan; Todd Carter; Carla L Cassidy; Eva Hall Chittenden; Ernest Degenhardt; Scott Griffith; Renee Manworren; Bill McCarberg; Robert Montgomery; Jamie Murphy; Melissa F Perkal; Santhanam Suresh; Kathleen Sluka; Scott Strassels; Richard Thirlby; Eugene Viscusi; Gary A Walco; Lisa Warner; Steven J Weisman; Christopher L Wu Journal: J Pain Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 5.820
Authors: Sara J Hyland; Kara K Brockhaus; William R Vincent; Nicole Z Spence; Michelle M Lucki; Michael J Howkins; Robert K Cleary Journal: Healthcare (Basel) Date: 2021-03-16