认知障碍疼痛评估 15 (PAIC15) 观察量表在失语症患者中的有效性和可靠性。

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY BMC Neurology Pub Date : 2024-09-05 DOI:10.1186/s12883-024-03824-8
N J de Vries, H J A Smaling, J T van der Steen, W P Achterberg
{"title":"认知障碍疼痛评估 15 (PAIC15) 观察量表在失语症患者中的有效性和可靠性。","authors":"N J de Vries, H J A Smaling, J T van der Steen, W P Achterberg","doi":"10.1186/s12883-024-03824-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The use of self-report pain scales in persons with aphasia can be challenging due to communication and cognitive problems, while for assessing pain self-report pain is considered the gold standard (Harrison RA, Field TS. Post stroke pain: identification, assessment, and therapy. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2015;39(3-4):190-201.). An observational scale may be used as an alternative. This study examines the validity and reliability of the observational Pain Assessment in Impaired Cognition (PAIC15) scale in persons with aphasia.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Persons with aphasia were observed during rest and transfer by two observers using the PAIC15. The PAIC15 comprises 15 items covering the three domains of facial expressions, body movements, and vocalizations. When able, the participant completed four self-report pain scales after each observation. The observations were repeated within one week. For criterion validity, correlations between the PAIC15 and self-report pain scales were calculated and for construct validity, three hypotheses were tested. Reliability was determined by assessing internal consistency, and intra- and interobserver agreement.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>PAIC15 observations were obtained for 71 persons (mean age 75.5 years) with aphasia. Fair positive correlations (rest: 0.35-0.50; transfer: 0.38-0.43) were reported between PAIC15 and almost all self-report pain scales. Results show that significantly more pain was observed in persons with aphasia during transfer than during rest. No differences were found for observed pain between persons with aphasia who use pain medication and those without, or persons who have joint diseases compared to those without. Results showed acceptable internal consistency. Intra- and interobserver agreement was high for most PAIC15 items, particularly for the domains body movements and vocalizations during rest and transfer.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Recognition of pain in persons aphasia using the PAIC15 showed mixed yet promising results.</p>","PeriodicalId":9170,"journal":{"name":"BMC Neurology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11375870/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Validity and reliability of the Pain Assessment in Impaired Cognition 15 (PAIC15) observation scale in persons with aphasia.\",\"authors\":\"N J de Vries, H J A Smaling, J T van der Steen, W P Achterberg\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12883-024-03824-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The use of self-report pain scales in persons with aphasia can be challenging due to communication and cognitive problems, while for assessing pain self-report pain is considered the gold standard (Harrison RA, Field TS. Post stroke pain: identification, assessment, and therapy. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2015;39(3-4):190-201.). An observational scale may be used as an alternative. This study examines the validity and reliability of the observational Pain Assessment in Impaired Cognition (PAIC15) scale in persons with aphasia.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Persons with aphasia were observed during rest and transfer by two observers using the PAIC15. The PAIC15 comprises 15 items covering the three domains of facial expressions, body movements, and vocalizations. When able, the participant completed four self-report pain scales after each observation. The observations were repeated within one week. For criterion validity, correlations between the PAIC15 and self-report pain scales were calculated and for construct validity, three hypotheses were tested. Reliability was determined by assessing internal consistency, and intra- and interobserver agreement.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>PAIC15 observations were obtained for 71 persons (mean age 75.5 years) with aphasia. Fair positive correlations (rest: 0.35-0.50; transfer: 0.38-0.43) were reported between PAIC15 and almost all self-report pain scales. Results show that significantly more pain was observed in persons with aphasia during transfer than during rest. No differences were found for observed pain between persons with aphasia who use pain medication and those without, or persons who have joint diseases compared to those without. Results showed acceptable internal consistency. Intra- and interobserver agreement was high for most PAIC15 items, particularly for the domains body movements and vocalizations during rest and transfer.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Recognition of pain in persons aphasia using the PAIC15 showed mixed yet promising results.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9170,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Neurology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11375870/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Neurology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12883-024-03824-8\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Neurology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12883-024-03824-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:由于沟通和认知问题,在失语症患者中使用自我报告疼痛量表可能具有挑战性,而自我报告疼痛被认为是评估疼痛的黄金标准(Harrison RA, Field TS.中风后疼痛:识别、评估和治疗》。Cerebrovasc Dis.2015;39(3-4):190-201.).观察量表可作为替代方法。本研究考察了认知受损疼痛评估(PAIC15)量表在失语症患者中的有效性和可靠性:方法:由两名观察者使用 PAIC15 对失语症患者在休息和转移时的情况进行观察。PAIC15 包括 15 个项目,涵盖面部表情、肢体动作和发声三个领域。在每次观察后,受试者都会填写四份自我报告疼痛量表。观察在一周内重复进行。在标准效度方面,计算了 PAIC15 与自我报告疼痛量表之间的相关性;在构造效度方面,测试了三个假设。通过评估内部一致性以及观察者内部和观察者之间的一致性来确定可靠性:对 71 名失语症患者(平均年龄 75.5 岁)进行了 PAIC15 观察。据报告,PAIC15 与几乎所有自我报告的疼痛量表之间都存在较好的正相关性(休息:0.35-0.50;转移:0.38-0.43)。结果显示,失语症患者在转移过程中的疼痛明显多于休息时。在使用止痛药和未使用止痛药的失语症患者之间,或患有关节疾病和未患有关节疾病的患者之间,观察到的疼痛没有差异。结果显示内部一致性尚可。大多数 PAIC15 项目的观察者内部和观察者之间的一致性都很高,尤其是在休息和转移时的肢体运动和发声领域:结论:使用 PAIC15 对失语症患者的疼痛进行识别,结果喜忧参半,但前景良好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Validity and reliability of the Pain Assessment in Impaired Cognition 15 (PAIC15) observation scale in persons with aphasia.

Background: The use of self-report pain scales in persons with aphasia can be challenging due to communication and cognitive problems, while for assessing pain self-report pain is considered the gold standard (Harrison RA, Field TS. Post stroke pain: identification, assessment, and therapy. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2015;39(3-4):190-201.). An observational scale may be used as an alternative. This study examines the validity and reliability of the observational Pain Assessment in Impaired Cognition (PAIC15) scale in persons with aphasia.

Methods: Persons with aphasia were observed during rest and transfer by two observers using the PAIC15. The PAIC15 comprises 15 items covering the three domains of facial expressions, body movements, and vocalizations. When able, the participant completed four self-report pain scales after each observation. The observations were repeated within one week. For criterion validity, correlations between the PAIC15 and self-report pain scales were calculated and for construct validity, three hypotheses were tested. Reliability was determined by assessing internal consistency, and intra- and interobserver agreement.

Results: PAIC15 observations were obtained for 71 persons (mean age 75.5 years) with aphasia. Fair positive correlations (rest: 0.35-0.50; transfer: 0.38-0.43) were reported between PAIC15 and almost all self-report pain scales. Results show that significantly more pain was observed in persons with aphasia during transfer than during rest. No differences were found for observed pain between persons with aphasia who use pain medication and those without, or persons who have joint diseases compared to those without. Results showed acceptable internal consistency. Intra- and interobserver agreement was high for most PAIC15 items, particularly for the domains body movements and vocalizations during rest and transfer.

Conclusions: Recognition of pain in persons aphasia using the PAIC15 showed mixed yet promising results.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Neurology
BMC Neurology 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
428
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Neurology is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of the prevention, diagnosis and management of neurological disorders, as well as related molecular genetics, pathophysiology, and epidemiology.
期刊最新文献
Cascade testing in mitochondrial diseases: a cross-sectional retrospective study The relationship between HbA1c and the activities of daily living in complex chronic patients with and without intracerebral hemorrhage Brain abscesses: the first report of disseminated Nocardia beijingensis infection in an immunocompetent individual in China Energy metabolism-related GLUD1 contributes to favorable clinical outcomes of IDH-mutant glioma Pharmacological and physiological effects of cannabidiol: a dose escalation, placebo washout study protocol
×
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