Are orofacial pain assessment tools for adults who cannot self-report pain suitable for dental practice? A scoping review.

IF 0.9 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE Special Care in Dentistry Pub Date : 2024-11-14 DOI:10.1111/scd.13089
Caoimhin Mac Giolla Phadraig, Alva Lawler, Georgia MacHesney, Isabel Fleischmann, Lisa McElroy, Ivana Dimitrijevic, Jill Smith, Dermot Canavan, Alison Dougall
{"title":"Are orofacial pain assessment tools for adults who cannot self-report pain suitable for dental practice? A scoping review.","authors":"Caoimhin Mac Giolla Phadraig, Alva Lawler, Georgia MacHesney, Isabel Fleischmann, Lisa McElroy, Ivana Dimitrijevic, Jill Smith, Dermot Canavan, Alison Dougall","doi":"10.1111/scd.13089","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This study aims to identify and appraise orofacial pain assessment tools designed to score pain in adults who cannot self-report and rate their suitability for dental practice.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A protocolled systematic scoping review, in accordance with Joanna Briggs Institute methods was completed. A development panel (n = 7) reviewed attributes of each tool for suitability for use in dental practice, using predefined criteria.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nine studies were included. Sample size ranged from n = 22 to n = 348; all participants were 65 years plus and had a cognitive impairment or dementia, excluding controls. Four tools were identified: Facial action coding system (FACS), mobilization-observation-behavior-intensity in dementia pain scale (MOBID I & II) and, orofacial pain scale-non-verbal individuals (OPS-NVI). Tools scored between two and thirteen out of twenty according to modified quality assessment criteria. No tool was deemed suitable for use in dental surgery, with the OPS-NVI scoring most favorably.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>No tools were deemed ideal for use within a dental clinic. Elements of some, particularly the OPS-NVI, may be adaptable for this purpose. Despite the difficulties dental practitioners face trying to assess pain in non-speaking patients, there was no suitable tool identified. Pathways need to be designed to facilitate inclusive orofacial pain assessment for those who cannot self-report pain.</p>","PeriodicalId":47470,"journal":{"name":"Special Care in Dentistry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Special Care in Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/scd.13089","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: This study aims to identify and appraise orofacial pain assessment tools designed to score pain in adults who cannot self-report and rate their suitability for dental practice.

Methods: A protocolled systematic scoping review, in accordance with Joanna Briggs Institute methods was completed. A development panel (n = 7) reviewed attributes of each tool for suitability for use in dental practice, using predefined criteria.

Results: Nine studies were included. Sample size ranged from n = 22 to n = 348; all participants were 65 years plus and had a cognitive impairment or dementia, excluding controls. Four tools were identified: Facial action coding system (FACS), mobilization-observation-behavior-intensity in dementia pain scale (MOBID I & II) and, orofacial pain scale-non-verbal individuals (OPS-NVI). Tools scored between two and thirteen out of twenty according to modified quality assessment criteria. No tool was deemed suitable for use in dental surgery, with the OPS-NVI scoring most favorably.

Conclusions: No tools were deemed ideal for use within a dental clinic. Elements of some, particularly the OPS-NVI, may be adaptable for this purpose. Despite the difficulties dental practitioners face trying to assess pain in non-speaking patients, there was no suitable tool identified. Pathways need to be designed to facilitate inclusive orofacial pain assessment for those who cannot self-report pain.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
针对无法自我报告疼痛的成年人的口面部疼痛评估工具是否适合牙科实践?范围综述。
简介:本研究旨在确定和评估为无法自我报告疼痛的成年人设计的口面部疼痛评估工具,并对其在牙科实践中的适用性进行评价:本研究旨在确定和评估口面部疼痛评估工具,这些工具旨在对无法自我报告的成年人的疼痛进行评分,并对其在牙科实践中的适用性进行评级:方法:根据乔安娜-布里格斯研究所的方法,完成了一项原核系统范围审查。一个开发小组(n = 7)使用预定义的标准对每种工具的属性进行了审查,以确定其是否适合在牙科实践中使用:结果:共纳入九项研究。样本量从 n = 22 到 n = 348 不等;所有参与者均为 65 岁以上、有认知障碍或痴呆症者,不包括对照组。确定了四种工具:面部动作编码系统(FACS)、痴呆症疼痛量表(MOBID I 和 II)和口面部疼痛量表(OPS-NVI)。根据修改后的质量评估标准,这些工具的得分介于 2 分和 13 分之间(满分 20 分)。没有一种工具被认为适合在牙科手术中使用,OPS-NVI 的得分最高:结论:没有一种工具被认为最适合在牙科诊所使用。结论:没有一种工具被认为是在牙科诊所中使用的理想工具,但其中一些工具,尤其是 OPS-NVI 可以用于这一目的。尽管牙科医生在评估不会说话的患者的疼痛时会遇到很多困难,但仍没有找到合适的工具。需要设计一些途径,以便为那些不能自我报告疼痛的患者提供包容性的口面部疼痛评估。
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
Special Care in Dentistry
Special Care in Dentistry DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
14.30%
发文量
120
期刊介绍: Special Care in Dentistry is the official journal of the Special Care Dentistry Association, the American Association of Hospital Dentists, the Academy of Dentistry for Persons with Disabilities, and the American Society for Geriatric Dentistry. It is the only journal published in North America devoted to improving oral health in people with special needs.
期刊最新文献
Oral complications associated with trigeminal trophic syndrome: A case report. Are orofacial pain assessment tools for adults who cannot self-report pain suitable for dental practice? A scoping review. Dentistry and Sturge-Weber syndrome: Case report and narrative review. Geriatric dentistry course effect against ageism among dental students: A cohort study. Exploring the oral health status of children living with hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy (HIE): A caregiver described self-report.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1