Development and validation of the pain management competency scale for nurses and a nationwide survey of Chinese nurses.

IF 3.9 2区 医学 Q1 NURSING BMC Nursing Pub Date : 2025-01-27 DOI:10.1186/s12912-025-02733-6
Yixue Wu, Xiang Pan, Lihui Gu, Yingge Tong, Siyi Chen, Ke Ni, Hangyan Du, Meng Yang, Jianyi Wang, Yi Chen, Yeling Wei, Lingling Luo, Wenqian Cheng
{"title":"Development and validation of the pain management competency scale for nurses and a nationwide survey of Chinese nurses.","authors":"Yixue Wu, Xiang Pan, Lihui Gu, Yingge Tong, Siyi Chen, Ke Ni, Hangyan Du, Meng Yang, Jianyi Wang, Yi Chen, Yeling Wei, Lingling Luo, Wenqian Cheng","doi":"10.1186/s12912-025-02733-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Nurses' competency in pain management is essential for effectively alleviating patients' acute pain, controlling chronic pain, and promoting patient recovery. However, reliable tools for evaluating these competencies across different clinical specialties and healthcare settings are lacking. This study aimed to develop and validate a Pain Management Competency Scale for Nurses (PMCSN) and to assess the pain management competencies of nurses in China through a nationwide survey.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An item pool and a draft scale were developed through literature reviews, semi-structured interviews, and expert panel discussions. This was followed by refinement of the scale via Delphi expert consultations and a pilot test. To validate the scale, 342 nurses were conveniently sampled from six hospitals in Eastern and Central China. The validation process included item analysis, internal consistency reliability assessment, test-retest reliability (with 40 nurses retaking the questionnaire after a 14-day interval), content validity (evaluated by six experts using a 4-point Likert scale), and structural validity (assessed through exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses). The validated scale was then applied in a survey of 1,500 nurses from 15 hospitals across Eastern, Central, and Western China. Statistical analyses included descriptive statistics, analysis of variance (ANOVA), and t-tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The PMCSN comprised six primary dimensions-Pain Assessment and Monitoring, Pharmacological Pain Management, Non-Pharmacological Pain Management, Management of Analgesic Adverse Effects, Patient/Family Education, and Professional Development-and includes 52 tertiary items. The PMCSN scores ranged from 6 to 120, calculated by summing the standardized scores across the six dimensions, with higher scores indicating greater competency in pain management. The scale's Cronbach's α was 0.974 (dimension-specific values ranging from 0.863 to 0.935) and a test-retest reliability of 0.871. The content validity index (CVI) of the scale was 0.965. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) showed that the six-factor model explained 67.50% of the variance. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) indicated good model fit, with average variance extracted (AVE) values ranging from 0.659 to 0.811 and composite reliability (CR) between 0.909 and 0.973, confirming good convergent validity. The square roots of the AVE values exceeded the inter-factor correlations, indicating good discriminant validity. In the nationwide survey, the average PMCSN score among 1,500 nurses was 101.27 ± 20.97. Nurses with higher education levels scored higher (F = 14.173, p < 0.01), as did those working in Eastern regions (F = 24.632, p < 0.01) and tertiary hospitals (T = -5.476, p < 0.01).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The PMCSN is a valid and reliable tool for assessing nurses' pain management competencies. It provides a standardized approach for evaluation and guides targeted interventions to improve competency. Regional and hospital-level disparities highlight the need for enhanced training in underdeveloped areas and collaboration between hospitals to promote balanced healthcare resources.</p>","PeriodicalId":48580,"journal":{"name":"BMC Nursing","volume":"24 1","pages":"98"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11773946/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-025-02733-6","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Nurses' competency in pain management is essential for effectively alleviating patients' acute pain, controlling chronic pain, and promoting patient recovery. However, reliable tools for evaluating these competencies across different clinical specialties and healthcare settings are lacking. This study aimed to develop and validate a Pain Management Competency Scale for Nurses (PMCSN) and to assess the pain management competencies of nurses in China through a nationwide survey.

Methods: An item pool and a draft scale were developed through literature reviews, semi-structured interviews, and expert panel discussions. This was followed by refinement of the scale via Delphi expert consultations and a pilot test. To validate the scale, 342 nurses were conveniently sampled from six hospitals in Eastern and Central China. The validation process included item analysis, internal consistency reliability assessment, test-retest reliability (with 40 nurses retaking the questionnaire after a 14-day interval), content validity (evaluated by six experts using a 4-point Likert scale), and structural validity (assessed through exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses). The validated scale was then applied in a survey of 1,500 nurses from 15 hospitals across Eastern, Central, and Western China. Statistical analyses included descriptive statistics, analysis of variance (ANOVA), and t-tests.

Results: The PMCSN comprised six primary dimensions-Pain Assessment and Monitoring, Pharmacological Pain Management, Non-Pharmacological Pain Management, Management of Analgesic Adverse Effects, Patient/Family Education, and Professional Development-and includes 52 tertiary items. The PMCSN scores ranged from 6 to 120, calculated by summing the standardized scores across the six dimensions, with higher scores indicating greater competency in pain management. The scale's Cronbach's α was 0.974 (dimension-specific values ranging from 0.863 to 0.935) and a test-retest reliability of 0.871. The content validity index (CVI) of the scale was 0.965. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) showed that the six-factor model explained 67.50% of the variance. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) indicated good model fit, with average variance extracted (AVE) values ranging from 0.659 to 0.811 and composite reliability (CR) between 0.909 and 0.973, confirming good convergent validity. The square roots of the AVE values exceeded the inter-factor correlations, indicating good discriminant validity. In the nationwide survey, the average PMCSN score among 1,500 nurses was 101.27 ± 20.97. Nurses with higher education levels scored higher (F = 14.173, p < 0.01), as did those working in Eastern regions (F = 24.632, p < 0.01) and tertiary hospitals (T = -5.476, p < 0.01).

Conclusions: The PMCSN is a valid and reliable tool for assessing nurses' pain management competencies. It provides a standardized approach for evaluation and guides targeted interventions to improve competency. Regional and hospital-level disparities highlight the need for enhanced training in underdeveloped areas and collaboration between hospitals to promote balanced healthcare resources.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

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
护士疼痛管理能力量表的编制与验证及全国护士调查。
背景:护士的疼痛管理能力对有效缓解患者急性疼痛、控制慢性疼痛、促进患者康复至关重要。然而,缺乏可靠的工具来评估不同临床专业和医疗保健环境中的这些能力。本研究旨在开发和验证护士疼痛管理能力量表(PMCSN),并通过一项全国性的调查来评估中国护士的疼痛管理能力。方法:通过文献综述、半结构式访谈和专家小组讨论,编制项目库和量表草案。随后通过德尔菲专家咨询和试点测试对量表进行了改进。为了验证量表,从华东和华中地区的6家医院方便地抽取了342名护士。验证过程包括项目分析、内部一致性信度评估、重测信度(40名护士在间隔14天后重新接受问卷)、内容效度(由6名专家使用4点李克特量表评估)和结构效度(通过探索性和验证性因素分析评估)。然后将该量表应用于东、中、西部15家医院的1500名护士的调查中。统计分析包括描述性统计、方差分析(ANOVA)和t检验。结果:PMCSN包括6个主要维度:疼痛评估和监测、药物疼痛管理、非药物疼痛管理、镇痛不良反应管理、患者/家庭教育和专业发展,并包括52个三级项目。PMCSN的得分范围从6到120,通过对六个维度的标准化得分求和来计算,得分越高表明疼痛管理能力越强。量表的Cronbach's α为0.974(维度特异性值为0.863 ~ 0.935),重测信度为0.871。量表的内容效度指数(CVI)为0.965。探索性因子分析(EFA)表明,六因子模型解释了67.50%的方差。验证性因子分析(CFA)表明模型拟合良好,平均方差提取(AVE)值在0.659 ~ 0.811之间,复合信度(CR)值在0.909 ~ 0.973之间,具有较好的收敛效度。AVE值的平方根超过了因子间的相关,表明有良好的判别效度。在全国调查中,1500名护士的PMCSN平均得分为101.27±20.97。结论:PMCSN是一种有效、可靠的评估护士疼痛管理能力的工具。它提供了一种标准化的评估方法,并指导有针对性的干预措施,以提高能力。区域和医院层面的差异突出表明,需要加强欠发达地区的培训和医院之间的合作,以促进卫生保健资源的平衡。
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
BMC Nursing
BMC Nursing Nursing-General Nursing
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
6.20%
发文量
317
审稿时长
30 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Nursing is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of nursing research, training, education and practice.
期刊最新文献
An evaluation of the impact of a double preceptorship model on nursing students' career adaptability: a quasi-experimental study. Investigating the relationship between moral sensitivity, moral distress, and patient safety climate with missed nursing care in clinical nurses: a systematic review. Impact of biophilic office features on nursing managers' well-being, productivity, and decision-making: a predictive correlational study. Nurses' attitudes toward physical health care of psychiatric patients scale: development and validation study. Competent and compassionate, but not leading? A cross-sectional study of nursing's brand image in the German public.
×
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学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
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