The psychometric assessment of the older adult in pain: A systematic review of assessment instruments

IF 13.7 1区心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL Clinical Psychology Review Pub Date : 2024-10-29 DOI:10.1016/j.cpr.2024.102513

Andrew I.G. McLennan , Emily M. Winters , Michelle M. Gagnon , Thomas Hadjistavropoulos

{"title":"The psychometric assessment of the older adult in pain: A systematic review of assessment instruments","authors":"Andrew I.G. McLennan , Emily M. Winters , Michelle M. Gagnon , Thomas Hadjistavropoulos","doi":"10.1016/j.cpr.2024.102513","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>We conducted a systematic review of pain assessment tools suitable for community-dwelling older adults. For this work, we conceptualized existing psychometric tools as falling under the following domains: a) pain intensity/characteristics; b) pain-related interference/disability; c) coping strategies; d) pain beliefs/attitudes/cognitions; e) pain-related fear and anxiety; and f) pain-specific emotional distress. Multi-dimensional and condition-specific tools were also considered. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodology for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures guided the evaluation of measurement properties, quality of evidence ratings, and recommendations for each measure. A search of Medline, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, yielded a total of 21,755 records. Of these, 120 studies, focusing on 57 psychometric tools, were included in this review and categorized into the aforementioned pain assessment domains. The availability of psychometric studies with older adult populations was insufficient for most tools and the quality of evidence ranged from very low to high. Only a small number of tools met the criteria for a strong or tentative recommendation favoring their use. We identified gaps that should be addressed in future research.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48458,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Psychology Review","volume":"114 ","pages":"Article 102513"},"PeriodicalIF":13.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027273582400134X","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

We conducted a systematic review of pain assessment tools suitable for community-dwelling older adults. For this work, we conceptualized existing psychometric tools as falling under the following domains: a) pain intensity/characteristics; b) pain-related interference/disability; c) coping strategies; d) pain beliefs/attitudes/cognitions; e) pain-related fear and anxiety; and f) pain-specific emotional distress. Multi-dimensional and condition-specific tools were also considered. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodology for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures guided the evaluation of measurement properties, quality of evidence ratings, and recommendations for each measure. A search of Medline, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, yielded a total of 21,755 records. Of these, 120 studies, focusing on 57 psychometric tools, were included in this review and categorized into the aforementioned pain assessment domains. The availability of psychometric studies with older adult populations was insufficient for most tools and the quality of evidence ranged from very low to high. Only a small number of tools met the criteria for a strong or tentative recommendation favoring their use. We identified gaps that should be addressed in future research.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

老年人疼痛心理评估：对评估工具的系统回顾。

我们对适用于社区老年人的疼痛评估工具进行了系统回顾。在这项工作中，我们将现有的心理测量工具归纳为以下几个领域：a) 疼痛强度/特征；b) 与疼痛相关的干扰/残疾；c) 应对策略；d) 疼痛信念/态度/认知；e) 与疼痛相关的恐惧和焦虑；f) 与疼痛相关的情绪困扰。此外，还考虑了多维工具和针对特定病症的工具。基于共识的健康测量工具选择标准（COSMIN）方法用于对患者报告的结果测量方法进行系统性回顾，指导对每种测量方法的测量特性、证据质量评级和建议进行评估。通过对 Medline、PsycINFO、Web of Science 和 Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature 的检索，共获得 21,755 条记录。其中有 120 项研究被纳入本综述，这些研究主要涉及 57 种心理测量工具，并按上述疼痛评估领域进行了分类。对于大多数工具而言，针对老年人群的心理测量研究并不充分，证据质量从很低到很高不等。只有少数工具符合强烈推荐或暂定推荐使用的标准。我们发现了未来研究中需要解决的不足之处。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Clinical Psychology Review PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-

CiteScore

23.10

自引率

1.60%

发文量

期刊介绍： Clinical Psychology Review serves as a platform for substantial reviews addressing pertinent topics in clinical psychology. Encompassing a spectrum of issues, from psychopathology to behavior therapy, cognition to cognitive therapies, behavioral medicine to community mental health, assessment, and child development, the journal seeks cutting-edge papers that significantly contribute to advancing the science and/or practice of clinical psychology. While maintaining a primary focus on topics directly related to clinical psychology, the journal occasionally features reviews on psychophysiology, learning therapy, experimental psychopathology, and social psychology, provided they demonstrate a clear connection to research or practice in clinical psychology. Integrative literature reviews and summaries of innovative ongoing clinical research programs find a place within its pages. However, reports on individual research studies and theoretical treatises or clinical guides lacking an empirical base are deemed inappropriate for publication.