Measuring pain intensity in older patients: a comparison of five scales.
Elderly
Geriatrics
Old
Older
Pain intensity
Pain scales
Pain tools
Journal
BMC geriatrics
ISSN: 1471-2318
Titre abrégé: BMC Geriatr
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968548
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
25 Jun 2024
25 Jun 2024
Historique:
received:
06
08
2023
accepted:
06
06
2024
medline:
26
6
2024
pubmed:
26
6
2024
entrez:
25
6
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Pain is common in older individuals. In order to understand and treat pain in this group, reliable and valid measures are needed. This study aimed to evaluate: (1) the validity, utility, incorrect response rates and preference rates of 5 pain rating scales in older individuals; and (2) the associations between age, education level, and cognitive function and both (a) incorrect response and (b) preference rates. Two hundred and one orthopedic clinic outpatients ≥ 65 years old were asked to rate their current pain, and least, average, and worst pain intensity in the past week using 5 scales: Verbal Numerical Rating Scale (VNRS), Faces Pain Scale - Revised (FPS-R), Verbal Rating Scale (VRS), Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Participants were also asked to indicate scale preference. We computed the associations between each measure and a factor score representing the shared variance among the scales, the incorrect response and scale preference rates, and the associations between incorrect response and preference rates and age, education level, and cognitive function. The incorrect responses included being unable to respond, providing more than one response, responses outside a range, providing range answers rather than fixed answers, and responses indicating 'least > average,' 'least > worst,' and 'average > worst'. The findings support validity of all 5 scales in older individuals who are able to use all measures. The VNRS had the lowest (2%) and the VAS had the highest (6%) incorrect response rates. The NRS was the most (35%) and the VAS was the least (5%) preferred. Age was associated with the incorrect response rates of the VRS and VAS, such that older individuals were less likely to use these scales correctly. Education level was associated with the incorrect response rates of the FPS-R, NRS and VAS, such that those with less education were less likely to use these measures correctly. Cognitive function was not significantly associated with incorrect response rates. Age, education level and cognitive function were not significantly associated with scale preference. Although all five scales are valid, the VNRS evidences the best overall utility in this sample of older individuals with pain. The NRS or FPS-R would be fine alternatives if it is not practical or feasible to use the VNRS.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
OBJECTIVE
Pain is common in older individuals. In order to understand and treat pain in this group, reliable and valid measures are needed. This study aimed to evaluate: (1) the validity, utility, incorrect response rates and preference rates of 5 pain rating scales in older individuals; and (2) the associations between age, education level, and cognitive function and both (a) incorrect response and (b) preference rates.
METHODS
METHODS
Two hundred and one orthopedic clinic outpatients ≥ 65 years old were asked to rate their current pain, and least, average, and worst pain intensity in the past week using 5 scales: Verbal Numerical Rating Scale (VNRS), Faces Pain Scale - Revised (FPS-R), Verbal Rating Scale (VRS), Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Participants were also asked to indicate scale preference. We computed the associations between each measure and a factor score representing the shared variance among the scales, the incorrect response and scale preference rates, and the associations between incorrect response and preference rates and age, education level, and cognitive function. The incorrect responses included being unable to respond, providing more than one response, responses outside a range, providing range answers rather than fixed answers, and responses indicating 'least > average,' 'least > worst,' and 'average > worst'.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The findings support validity of all 5 scales in older individuals who are able to use all measures. The VNRS had the lowest (2%) and the VAS had the highest (6%) incorrect response rates. The NRS was the most (35%) and the VAS was the least (5%) preferred. Age was associated with the incorrect response rates of the VRS and VAS, such that older individuals were less likely to use these scales correctly. Education level was associated with the incorrect response rates of the FPS-R, NRS and VAS, such that those with less education were less likely to use these measures correctly. Cognitive function was not significantly associated with incorrect response rates. Age, education level and cognitive function were not significantly associated with scale preference.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Although all five scales are valid, the VNRS evidences the best overall utility in this sample of older individuals with pain. The NRS or FPS-R would be fine alternatives if it is not practical or feasible to use the VNRS.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38918711
doi: 10.1186/s12877-024-05127-6
pii: 10.1186/s12877-024-05127-6
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Comparative Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
556Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Mendoza ME, Gertz KJ, Jensen MP. Contributions of four pain domains to the prediction of patient functioning and pain interference. Psychol Neurosci. 2014;7(1):3–8. https://doi.org/10.3922/j.psns.2014.1.02 .
doi: 10.3922/j.psns.2014.1.02
Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Farrar JT, Haythornthwaite JA, Jensen MP, Katz NP, et al. Core outcome measures for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain. 2005;113(1–2):9–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2004.09.012 .
doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2004.09.012
pubmed: 15621359
Australian and New Zealand Society for Geriatric Medicine Position Statement Abstract. Pain in older people. Australas J Ageing. 2016;35(4):293. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajag.12262 .
doi: 10.1111/ajag.12262
Bergh I, Sjöström B, Odén A, Steen B. An application of pain rating scales in geriatric patients. Aging (Milano). 2000;12(5):380–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03339864 .
doi: 10.1007/BF03339864
pubmed: 11126525
Herr KA, Spratt K, Mobily PR, Richardson G. Pain intensity assessment in older adults: use of experimental pain to compare psychometric properties and usability of selected pain scales with younger adults. Clin J Pain. 2004;20(4):207–19. https://doi.org/10.1097/00002508-200407000-00002 .
doi: 10.1097/00002508-200407000-00002
pubmed: 15218405
Miró J, Huguet A, Nieto R, Paredes S, Baos J. Evaluation of reliability, validity, and preference for a pain intensity scale for use with the elderly. J Pain. 2005;6(11):727–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpain.2005.06.005 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2005.06.005
pubmed: 16275596
Zhou Y, Petpichetchian W, Kitrungrote L. Psychometric properties of pain intensity scales comparing among postoperative adult patients, elderly patients without and with mild cognitive impairment in China. Int J Nurs Stud. 2011;48(4):449–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2010.08.002 .
doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2010.08.002
pubmed: 20817183
Benesh LR, Szigeti E, Ferraro FR, Gullicks JN. Tools for assessing chronic pain in rural elderly women. Home Healthc Nurse. 1997;15(3):207–11. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004045-199703000-00009 .
doi: 10.1097/00004045-199703000-00009
pubmed: 9110684
Taylor LJ, Harris J, Epps CD, Herr K. Psychometric evaluation of selected pain intensity scales for use with cognitively impaired and cognitively intact older adults. Rehabil Nurs. 2005;30(2):55–61. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2048-7940.2005.tb00360.x .
doi: 10.1002/j.2048-7940.2005.tb00360.x
pubmed: 15789697
Ware LJ, Epps CD, Herr K, Packard A. Evaluation of the revised faces pain scale, verbal descriptor scale, numeric rating scale, and Iowa pain thermometer in older minority adults. Pain Manag Nurs. 2006;7(3):117–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmn.2006.06.005 .
doi: 10.1016/j.pmn.2006.06.005
pubmed: 16931417
Taylor LJ, Herr K. Pain intensity assessment: a comparison of selected pain intensity scales for use in cognitively intact and cognitively impaired African American older adults. Pain Manag Nurs. 2003;4(2):87–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1524-9042(02)54210-7 .
doi: 10.1016/s1524-9042(02)54210-7
pubmed: 12836153
Chibnall JT, Tait RC. Pain assessment in cognitively impaired and unimpaired older adults: a comparison of four scales. Pain. 2001;92(1–2):173–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0304-3959(00)00485-1 .
doi: 10.1016/s0304-3959(00)00485-1
pubmed: 11323138
Nunnally JC. Psychometric theory. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw Hill; 1978.
Train the brain forum committee. Thai mental state examination (TMSE). Siriraj Hosp Gaz. 1993;45:359–74.
Hong GR, Lim Y. Reliability and validity of the Korean version of the way-finding effectiveness scale for persons with dementia. J Clin Nurs. 2009;18(11):1625–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2008.02649.x .
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2008.02649.x
pubmed: 19220622
Senanarong V, Poungvarin N, Jamjumras P, Sriboonroung A, Danchaivijit C, Udomphanthuruk S, et al. Neuropsychiatric symptoms, functional impairment and executive ability in Thai patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Int Psychogeriatr. 2005;17(1):81–90. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1041610205000980 .
doi: 10.1017/s1041610205000980
pubmed: 15945593
Jensen MP, Karoly P. Self-report scales and procedures for assessing pain in adults. In: Turk DC, Melzack R, editors. Handbook of pain assessment. New York: The Guilford; 2011. pp. 19–44.
Hicks CL, von Baeyer CL, Spafford PA, van Korlaar I, Goodenough B. The faces pain scale-revised: toward a common metric in pediatric pain measurement. Pain. 2001;93(2):173–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3959(01)00314-1 .
doi: 10.1016/S0304-3959(01)00314-1
pubmed: 11427329
International Association for the Study of Pain. Faces pain scale - Revised. https://www.iasp-pain.org/resources/faces-pain-scale-revised/ [Cited on 10 Feb 2023].
Heft MW, Gracely RH, Dubner R, McGrath PA. A validation model for verbal descriptor scaling of human clinical pain. Pain. 1980;9(3):363–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3959(80)90050-0 .
doi: 10.1016/0304-3959(80)90050-0
pubmed: 7208081
Jensen MP, Karoly P, Braver S. The measurement of clinical pain intensity: a comparison of six methods. Pain. 1986;27(1):117–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3959(86)90228-9 .
doi: 10.1016/0304-3959(86)90228-9
pubmed: 3785962
Atisook R, Euasobhon P, Saengsanon A, Jensen MP. Validity and utility of four pain intensity measures for use in international research. J Pain Res. 2021;14:1129–39. https://doi.org/10.2147/JPR.S303305 .
doi: 10.2147/JPR.S303305
pubmed: 33907460
pmcid: 8071079
Pathak A, Sharma S, Jensen MP. The utility and validity of pain intensity rating scales for use in developing countries. Pain Rep. 2018;3(5):e672. https://doi.org/10.1097/PR9.0000000000000672 .
doi: 10.1097/PR9.0000000000000672
pubmed: 30534623
pmcid: 6181466
Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric theory. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1994.
Li L, Herr K, Chen P. Postoperative pain assessment with three intensity scales in Chinese elders. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2009;41(3):241–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1547-5069.2009.01280.x .
doi: 10.1111/j.1547-5069.2009.01280.x
pubmed: 19723272
Kremer E, Atkinson HJ, Ignelzi RJ. Measurement of pain: patient preference does not confound pain measurement. Pain. 1981;10(2):241–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3959(81)90199-8 .
doi: 10.1016/0304-3959(81)90199-8
pubmed: 7267140
Gagliese L, Weizblit N, Ellis W, Chan VWS. The measurement of postoperative pain: a comparison of intensity scales in younger and older surgical patients. Pain. 2005;117(3):412–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2005.07.004 .
doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2005.07.004
pubmed: 16153776
Peters ML, Patijn J, Lamé I. Pain assessment in younger and older pain patients: psychometric properties and patient preference of five commonly used measures of pain intensity. Pain Med. 2007;8(7):601–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-4637.2007.00311.x .
doi: 10.1111/j.1526-4637.2007.00311.x
pubmed: 17883744
Jensen MP, Castarlenas E, Roy R, Tomé Pires C, Racine M, Pathak A, et al. The utility and construct validity of four measures of pain intensity: results from a university-based study in Spain. Pain Med. 2019;20(12):2411–20. https://doi.org/10.1093/pm/pny319 .
doi: 10.1093/pm/pny319
pubmed: 30877801
Hardy JD, Wolff HG, Goodell H. Pain sensations and reactions. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins; 1952.
Smith SM, Amtmann D, Askew RL, Gewandter JS, Hunsinger M, Jensen MP, et al. Pain intensity rating training: results from an exploratory study of the ACTTION PROTECCT system. Pain. 2016;157(5):1056–64. https://doi.org/10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000502 .
doi: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000502
pubmed: 27058680
Herr KA, Mobily PR. Comparison of selected pain assessment tools for use with the elderly. Ap Nurs Res. 1993;6(1):39–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0897-1897(05)80041-2 .
doi: 10.1016/s0897-1897(05)80041-2
Lefebvre JC, Keefe FJ. Memory for pain: the relationship of pain catastrophizing to the recall of daily rheumatoid arthritis pain. Clin J Pain. 2002;18(1):56–63. https://doi.org/10.1097/00002508-200201000-00009 .
doi: 10.1097/00002508-200201000-00009
pubmed: 11803304
Smith WB, Safer MA. Effects of present pain level on recall of chronic pain and medication use. Pain. 1993;55(3):355–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3959(93)90011-D .
doi: 10.1016/0304-3959(93)90011-D
pubmed: 8121697
Eich E, Reeves JL, Jaeger B, Graff-Radford SB. Memory for pain: relation between past and present pain intensity. Pain. 1985;23(4):375–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3959(85)90007-7 .
doi: 10.1016/0304-3959(85)90007-7
pubmed: 4088698