Dataset Information

Assessment of the face validity of two pain scales in Kenya: a validation study using cognitive interviewing.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Patients in sub-Saharan Africa commonly experience pain, which often is un-assessed and undertreated. One hindrance to routine pain assessment in these settings is the lack of a single-item pain rating scale validated for the particular context. The goal of this study was to examine the face validity and cultural acceptability of two single-item pain scales, the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) and the Faces Pain Scale-Revised (FPS-R), in a population of patients on the medical, surgical, and pediatric wards of Moi Teaching and Referral Hospital in Kenya.

Methods

Swahili versions of the NRS and FPS-R were developed by standard translation and back-translation. Cognitive interviews were performed with 15 patients at Moi Teaching and Referral Hospital in Eldoret, Kenya. Interview transcripts were analyzed on a question-by-question basis to identify major themes revealed through the cognitive interviewing process and to uncover any significant problems participants encountered with understanding and using the pain scales.

Results

Cognitive interview analysis demonstrated that participants had good comprehension of both the NRS and the FPS-R and showed rational decision-making processes in choosing their responses. Participants felt that both scales were easy to use. The FPS-R was preferred almost unanimously to the NRS.

Conclusions

The face validity and acceptability of the Swahili versions of the NRS and FPS-R has been demonstrated for use in Kenyan patients. The broader application of these scales should be evaluated and may benefit patients who currently suffer from pain.

SUBMITTER: Huang KT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3393614 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Assessment of the face validity of two pain scales in Kenya: a validation study using cognitive interviewing.

Huang Kristin Tl KT Owino Claudio C Vreeman Rachel C RC Hagembe Mildred M Njuguna Festus F Strother R Matthew RM Gramelspacher Gregory P GP

BMC palliative care 20120710

<h4>Background</h4>Patients in sub-Saharan Africa commonly experience pain, which often is un-assessed and undertreated. One hindrance to routine pain assessment in these settings is the lack of a single-item pain rating scale validated for the particular context. The goal of this study was to examine the face validity and cultural acceptability of two single-item pain scales, the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) and the Faces Pain Scale-Revised (FPS-R), in a population of patients on the medical, s ...[more]

PMID: 22512923

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe UNESP-Botucatu multidimensional feline pain assessment scale (UFEPS) is a valid and reliable instrument for acute pain assessment in cats. However, its limitations are that responsiveness was not tested using a negative control group, it was validated only for ovariohysterectomy, and it can be time-consuming. We aimed to evaluate the construct and criterion validity, reliability, sensitivity, and specificity of the UFEPS and its novel short form (SF) in various clinical or painful surgical conditions.MethodsTen client-owned healthy controls (CG) and 40 client-owned cats requiring pain management for clinical or surgical care (20 clinical and 20 surgery group (12 orthopedic and eight soft tissue surgeries) were recruited. Three evaluators assessed pain, in real-time, in clinical cases before and 20 min after rescue analgesia and in surgical cases before and up to 6.5 hours postoperatively, by using the visual analog, numerical ratio, and a simple descriptive scale, in this order, followed by the UFEPS-SF, UFEPS and Glasgow multidimensional feline pain (Glasgow CMPS-Feline) in random order. For the surgical group, rescue analgesia (methadone 0.2 mg/kg IM or IV and/or dipyrone 12.5 mg/kg IV) was performed when the UFEPS-SF score was ≥4 or exceptionally according to clinical judgement. If a third interventional analgesia was required, methadone (0.1-0.2 mg/kg IM) and ketamine (1 mg/kg IM) were administered. For the clinical group, all cats received rescue analgesia (methadone 0.1-0.2 mg/kg IM or IV or nalbuphine 0.5 mg/kg IM or IV), according to the clinician in charge, regardless of pain scores. Construct (1-comparison of scores in cats undergoing pain vs pain-free control cats by unpaired Wilcoxon-test and 2-responsiveness to analgesia by paired Wilcoxon test) and concurrent criterion validity (Spearman correlation of the total score among scales), inter-rater reliability, specificity and sensitivity were calculated for each scale (α = 0.05).ResultsReliability ranged between moderate and good for the UFEPS and UFEPS-SF (confidence intervals of intraclass coefficients = 0.73-0.86 and 0.63-0.82 respectively). The Spearman correlation between UFEPS and UFEPS-SF was 0.85, and their correlation with Glasgow CMPS-Feline was strong (0.79 and 0.78 respectively), confirming criterion validity. All scales showed construct validity or responsiveness (higher scores of cats with clinical and postoperative pain vs healthy controls, and the reduction in scores after rescue analgesia). The sensitivity and specificity of the UFEPS, UFEPS-SF and Glasgow CMPS-Feline were moderate (sensitivity 83.25, 78.60% and 74.28%; specificity 72.00, 84.67 and 70.00%, respectively).ConclusionsBoth UFEPS and UFEPS-SF showed appropriate concurrent validity, responsiveness, reliability, sensitivity, and specificity for feline acute pain assessment in cats with various clinical and orthopedic and soft tissue surgical conditions.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:Our research determined whether the Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination Version III (ACE-III) Urdu eliminated cultural bias through a qualitative assessment of its understanding and acceptability within the British Urdu-speaking population, employing cognitive interviews. METHOD:We aimed to recruit 25 participants fluent in speaking and writing Urdu, over the age of 60 years, able to give informed consent and who did not have a history of cognitive impairment. Participants were administered the ACE-III Urdu, and cognitive interviews were conducted, which involve obtaining verbal data on the individual's perception of the assessment overall, their understanding of the mental processes behind how they interpreted questions within the assessment and how they produced appropriate responses. This allows us to gauge the participants' overall thoughts on the Urdu ACE-III before applying question-formatted prompts to every ACE-III Urdu item. RESULTS:We recruited 25 participants, 12 women (48%), ranging from ages 60 years to 85 years (M=69.12, SD=6.57), all from Greater Manchester. Participants came from varied socioeconomic backgrounds, with 22 identifying as Pakistani, one as British Pakistani and two as East African. Across 19 ACE-III Urdu items, 7 required changes based on participant feedback: item 5a: fluency; items 6, 18 and 19: memory; items 12 and 13: language; and item 17: visuospatial abilities.The need for some of these changes was realised after 21 participants, due to persistently reoccurring issues, and these were applied before the last four participants. Overall, the ACE-III Urdu was considered easy and straightforward by all 25 participants, who understood items and felt the ACE-III Urdu was appropriate, not just for them, but for British Urdu speakers in general. CONCLUSION:Our cognitive interviews determined the ACE-III Urdu was acceptable, especially with regards to cultural context, but further changes were made to ensure understanding. Therefore, we adapted the ACE-III Urdu in accordance with feedback, resulting in our finalised version being culturally validated.

Project description:Evaluation of acute pain in dogs and cats is the basis for an appropriate treatment and improved well-being. The difficulties involved in pain assessment pose a challenge for veterinarians, and recent findings indicate that the most effective tools available-validated pain assessment scales-may not be widely utilized.ObjectivesThis study aimed to characterize the level of concern among Spanish veterinarians regarding acute pain in companion animals. Additionally, it sought to determine whether this concern correlates with the utilization of optimal assessment tools.MethodsA survey was conducted to explore Spanish veterinarians' attitudes toward pain and its assessment. The survey was distributed through two most prominent small animal veterinary associations, the Spanish association for veterinary anesthesia and analgesia, as well as key industry players committed to proactive pain management. Descriptive analysis of the collected data was performed using Excel and SPSS.ResultsA total of 292 veterinarians participated in the study. A high level of concern regarding pain in dogs and cats was determined where 44% of surveyed veterinarians assessed pain in all patients. Despite an awareness of validated pain scales, only 28% used them. The preferred scales were the Glasgow CMPS for dogs (94%) and the Feline Grimace Scale for cats (93%). Among respondents who do not use these validated tools, there was a considerable interest in incorporating these scales into practice (85%) and considered lack of training was the most relevant issue (32%). Other challenges to scale utilization were identified, including constraints related to time, staffing, and the need to establish a habit.Conclusions and relevanceSpanish small animal veterinarians demonstrated a strong awareness to pain in their patients and employed various methods for pain assessment. However, a limited use of validated tools was identified and likely attributed to challenges such as a lack of established routine, time constraints, insufficient personnel, and, notably, a knowledge gap among veterinarians who do not employ pain assessment scales. The most commonly used scales were the Glasgow CMPS for dogs and the FGS for cats. Overall, these results suggest a window of opportunity for the implementation of training programs in small animal pain assessment at a national level.

Project description:BackgroundThe Cognitive Scale for Functional Bowel Disorders (CS-FBD) and Irritable Bowel Syndrome-Behavioral Responses Questionnaire (IBS-BRQ) are a useful measures to assess cognitive-behavioral aspects in individuals with IBS. This study aimed to confirm the reliability and validity of the Japanese versions of the CS-FBD (CS-FBD-J) and IBS-BRQ (IBS-BRQ-J).MethodsParticipants comprised 192 students and 22 outpatients diagnosed with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). There were 76 students who met the diagnostic criteria for IBS and two students who received treatment for IBS. Participants completed questionnaires containing the CS-FBD-J, IBS Severity Index (IBS-SI), Visceral Sensitivity Index (VSI), 24-item Dysfunctional Attitudes Scale (DAS-24), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and Social Adaptation Self-evaluation Scale (SASS).ResultsOur exploratory factor analysis revealed that the CS-FBD-J had a unidimensional factor structure and that the factor loadings for two of the 25 items were less than 0.4. The IBS-BRQ-J had a two-factor structure, and the factor loadings for eight of the 26 items were less than 0.4. The confirmatory factor analysis for the 18-item version of IBS-BRQ-J showed that the model fit indices were not sufficient. The CS-FBD-J and IBS-BRQ-J had significant, moderate correlations with the IBS-SI and VSI in the IBS and control groups. Correlation between the DAS-24 and the CS-FBD-J was not significant. The CS-FBD-J and IBS-BRQ-J were significantly correlated to the HADS and SASS (IBS-BRQ-J) only in the IBS group. The scores of CS-FBD-J and IBS-BRQ-J showed significant group differences between the IBS patient group, non-patient IBS group, and control group. The internal consistencies of the CS-FBD-J and IBS-BRQ-J were high. The item-total correlation analysis for the CS-FBD-J and IBS-BRQ-J showed that the correlations between each item and the total score were significant.ConclusionThis study confirmed the reliability and validity of the 23-item version of the CS-FBS-J and the 18-item version of the IBS-BRQ-J with the deletion of items with low factor loadings. Regarding the IBS-BRQ-J, two factor structures were confirmed (factor 1: behavior obsessed with abdominal symptoms, factor 2: avoidance of abdominal symptoms and associated difficulties) although the model fit of the structure needs further study.

Dataset Information

Assessment of the face validity of two pain scales in Kenya: a validation study using cognitive interviewing.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Assessment of the face validity of two pain scales in Kenya: a validation study using cognitive interviewing.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets