Psychometric comparison of three behavioural scales for the assessment of pain in critically ill patients unable to self-report

Introduction

Pain assessment is associated with important outcomes in ICU patients but remains challenging, particularly in non-communicative patients. Use of a reliable tool is paramount to allow any implementation of sedation/analgesia protocols in a multidisciplinary team. This study compared psychometric properties (inter-rater agreement primarily; validity, responsiveness and feasibility secondarily) of three pain scales: Behavioural Pain Scale (BPS/BPS-NI, that is BPS for Non-Intubated patients), Critical Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) and Non-verbal Pain Scale (NVPS), the pain tool routinely used in this 16-bed medical ICU.

Methods

Pain was assessed by at least one of four investigators and one of the 20 bedside nurses before, during and 10 minutes after routine care procedures in non-comatose patients (Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale ≥ -3) who were unable to self-report their pain intensity. The Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU was used to assess delirium. Non-parametric tests were used for statistical analysis. Quantitative data are presented as median (25^th to 75^th).

Results

A total of 258 paired assessments of pain were performed in 30 patients (43% lightly sedated, 57% with delirium, 63% mechanically ventilated). All three scales demonstrated good psychometric properties. However, BPS and CPOT exhibited the best inter-rater reliability (weighted-κ 0.81 for BPS and CPOT) and the best internal consistency (Cronbach-α 0.80 for BPS, 0.81 for CPOT), which were higher than for NVPS (weighted-κ 0.71, P <0.05; Cronbach-α 0.76, P <0.01). Responsiveness was significantly higher for BPS compared to CPOT and for CPOT compared to NVPS. For feasibility, BPS was rated as the easiest scale to remember but there was no significant difference in regards to users’ preference.

Conclusions

BPS and CPOT demonstrate similar psychometric properties in non-communicative intubated and non-intubated ICU patients.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/cc14000) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.     

Comparison of the Zurich Observation Pain Assessment with the Behavioural Pain Scale and the Critical Care Pain Observation Tool in nonverbal patients in the intensive care unit: A prospective observational study

ObjectivesTo determine the concordance of Zurich Observation Pain Assessment (ZOPA) with the behavioural Pain Scale (BPS) and the Critical Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) to detect pain in nonverbal ICU patients.DesignProspective observational study [BASEC-Nr. PB_2016-02324].SettingA total of 49 ICU patients from cardiovascular, visceral and thoracic surgery and neurology and neurosurgery were recruited. Data from 24 patients were analyzed.Main Outcome MeasurementsThree independent observers assessed pain with the BPS, the CPOT or ZOPA prior, during and after a potential painful nursing intervention. Tools were randomized concerning the pain management after each pain assessment. Frequency of nine additional pain indicating items from a previous qualitative, explorative study was calculated.ResultsZOPA was positive in 32 of 33 measuring cycles (97.0%; 95%CI: 84.2-99.9%), followed by the CPOT (28/33 cycles, 84.8%; 95%CI: 68.1–94.9%) and the BPS (23/33 cycles, 67.0%; 95%CI: 51.3–84.4%). In 22/33 cycles all tools were concordant (66.7%; 95%CI: 48.2-82.0%). Analgesics were provided in 29 out of 33 cycles (87.9%; 95%CI: 71.8–96.6%). Additional pain indicating items were inconsistently reported.ConclusionZOPA is concordant with the BPS and the CPOT to indicate pain but detects pain earlier due to the low threshold value. Inclusion of further items does not improve pain assessment.     

Reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the behavioral pain scale in intubated and non-intubated critically ill patients: Two cross-sectional studies

BackgroundSelf-report pain assessment scales may be inappropriate when critically ill patients are incapable of adequate communication because of sedation or mechanical ventilation. The Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS, for intubated patients) and the BPS-non intubated (BPS-NI, for non-intubated patients) measure objective behavioral indicators of pain in non-communicating critically ill patients.ObjectivesTo develop a Chinese version of the BPS combining the original version of the BPS and BPS-NI suitable for pain assessment among critically ill patients and to determine its reliability and validity.DesignTwo cross-sectional studies.SettingsA 15-bed surgical intensive care unit (ICU) in a teaching hospital in Beijing, China.ParticipantsIn the first study, 129 patients (53 intubated and 76 non-intubated) were recruited; in the second study, 83 (43 intubated and 40 non-intubated) were recruited.MethodsThe Chinese version of the BPS (BPS-C) was developed via rigorous translation methods, including double back-translation and content validation involving 13 clinical experts. Internal consistency, discriminative validity, and criterion-related validity were established using the BPS-C and the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS). The BPS-C and NRS were used to assess pain in 53 intubated and 76 non-intubated post-abdominal surgery patients during low pain exposure and increased pain exposure in the first study. To establish interrater reliability, a researcher and a bedside nurse independently performed 172 paired assessments in 43 intubated patients and 160 paired assessments in 40 non-intubated patients with the BPS-C under the same conditions in the second study.ResultsThe BPS-C achieved conceptual and semantic equivalence with the original tool. Internal consistency was established through Cronbach's alpha (α = 0.724–0.743 in intubated patients, α = 0.701–0.762 in non-intubated patients). Interrater reliability was confirmed through the intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), which ranged from 0.962 to 1.000 in both intubated and non-intubated patients with high agreement percentages (95.3–100.0% in intubated and 95.0–100.0% in non-intubated patients). BPS-C scores during increased exposure to pain were significantly higher than those obtained during low exposure to pain, indicating discriminative validity. Criterion-related validity was confirmed by strong positive correlations between BPS-C and NRS scores (Pearson's correlations r = 0.815–0.937 for intubated patients, Pearson's correlations r = 0.755–0.899 for non-intubated patients).ConclusionsThe Chinese version of the BPS (BPS-C) is appropriate for pain assessment among intubated and non-intubated ICU patients.     

Measuring pain in non-verbal critically ill patients: which pain instrument?

Pain is experienced by many critically ill patients. Although the patient’s self-report represents the gold-standard measure for pain, many patients are unable to communicate in the ICU. In this commentary, we discuss the study findings comparing three objective scales for the assessment of pain in non-verbal patients and the importance of the tool selection process.In the previous issue of Critical Care, Chanques and colleagues [1] evaluate the psychometric properties of three behavioral pain scales validated for use in non-communicative critically ill patients. The authors compare two scales recommended in the practice guidelines for pain management of adult ICU patients by the Society of Critical Care Medicine [2] - that is, the Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS) [3] and the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) [4] - and a routine scale in use at the host institution, the Non-Verbal Pain Scale (NVPS) [5].Assessing pain in non-communicative adult patients in the ICU must rely on the observation of behavioral indicators of pain. Selection of pain assessment tools in clinical practice must be done with rigor. Indeed, an assessment tool can be shown to be valid only for a specific purpose and a given group of respondents and context of care. All steps of scale development are important. The first step, selection of items and scale scoring, can be done by using a combination of various strategies, including an in-depth literature review, consultation of end users (for example, ICU clinicians and patients), and direct clinical observation and other sources. Content validation is a method of examining the content and relevance of the items that are useful for selecting or revising them. Once developed, reliability and validity of the scale use must be tested with the targeted patient group [6]. Reliability refers to the overall reproducibility of scale scores. The examination of inter-rater reliability is crucial to determine whether two or more trained raters reach similar scores using the same scale for the same patient and at the same time. Validity refers to the interpretation of the pain scale scores and its ability to indicate that the individual is actually in pain. As behavioral pain scales aim to detect the presence of significant pain, the examination of criterion and discriminant validation is necessary. Criterion validation allows the comparison between behavioral scores and the gold standard (that is, the patient’s self-report of pain). Discriminant validation refers to the ability of the pain scale to discriminate between conditions or procedures known to be painful or not and its ability to detect significant changes over time (responsiveness). Because validation is an ongoing process, it is imperative that its use be evaluated by independent groups of caregivers who were not involved in its development, with various ICU patient groups or with a translated version of the scale. Finally, the ease of their implementation in ICU settings and the impact of their use on pain management practices and patient outcomes must be evaluated.Evaluation of the psychometric properties of behavioral pain scales in ICU patients unable to self-report has been recently performed [7,8]. Of the eight pain scales developed for adult ICU patients, the BPS and the CPOT were found to be the most valid and reliable. The present study [1] is the first to compare psychometric properties of these two pain scales in addition to the NVPS, at rest and during noxious (for example, turning and endotracheal suctioning) and non-noxious (for example, simple repositioning) procedures. Both the BPS and the CPOT showed the strongest psychometric properties in both intubated and non-intubated patients in comparison with the NVPS. These findings add arguments to the recommendations for the use of these two pain scales [2].What are the next steps in relation to pain assessment in the ICU? First, there is a clear need to better evaluate the impact of pain assessment and management on patient outcomes. Few studies have shown that evaluating pain was associated with positive outcomes such as a shorter duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU length of stay and reduced adverse events [9-11]. Whether better management in the ICU may lead to reducing long-term negative consequences such as chronic pain and symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder remains largely unknown. Second, there is a need for valid physiologic measures of pain, especially in ICU patients too sedated or paralyzed in whom behavioral responses cannot be observed. The use of pupillary reflex dilation has shown some promising findings [12-14]. Meanwhile, the best alternative measure to assess pain in non-verbal patients remains the use of behavioral scales.Assessing pain in non-communicative ICU patients is challenging. The BPS and the CPOT have shown the strongest psychometric properties for this purpose. These scales should be incorporated into pain management protocols to target the desired levels of analgesia in order to optimize inter-professional practices and to achieve better patient outcomes.     

The Effect of Music on Pain in the Adult Intensive Care Unit: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

ContextMultimodal analgesic approaches are recommended for intensive care unit (ICU) pain management. Although music is known to reduce pain in acute and chronic care settings, less is known about its effectiveness in the adult ICU.ObjectivesDetermine the effects of music interventions on pain in the adult ICU, compared with standard care or noise reduction.MethodsThis review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42018106889). Databases were searched for randomized controlled trials of music interventions in the adult ICU, with the search terms [“music*” and (“critical care” or “intensive care”)]. Pain scores (i.e., self-report rating scales or behavioral scores) were the main outcomes of this review. Data were analyzed using a DerSimonian-Laird random-effects method with standardized mean difference (SMD) of pain scores. Statistical heterogeneity was determined as I² > 50% and explored via subgroup analyses and meta-regression.ResultsEighteen randomized controlled trials with a total of 1173 participants (60% males; mean age 60 years) were identified. Ten of these studies were included in the meta-analysis based on risk of bias assessment (n = 706). Music was efficacious in reducing pain (SMD −0.63 [95% CI −1.02, −0.24; n = 10]; I² = 87%). Music interventions of 20–30 minutes were associated with a larger decrease in pain scores (SMD −0.66 [95% CI −0.94, −0.37; n = 5]; I² = 30%) compared with interventions of less than 20 minutes (SMD 0.10 [95% CI −0.10, 0.29; n = 4]; I² = 0%). On a 0–10 scale, 20–30 minutes of music resulted in an average decrease in pain scores of 1.06 points (95% CI −1.56, −0.56).ConclusionMusic interventions of 20–30 minutes are efficacious to reduce pain in adult ICU patients able to self-report.     

Assessment of Procedural Pain in Patients with COVID-19 in the Intensive Care Unit

AimThe purpose of the study was to assess the level of procedural pain in patients treated in the COVID-19 intensive care unit, in a tertiary university hospital.MethodWe performed the procedural pain assessment of COVID-19 patients in this study, and 162 (93.6 %) of 173 hospitalized patients assessed during this period. While pain was assessed before, during, and at the 20th minute after endotracheal aspiration, wound care, and position change, which are procedural patient practices, the pain was assessed before, during, and up to the fourth hour after prone positioning, high-flow oxygen therapy (HFOT), and the non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIMV) procedure. The Numerical Pain Scale was used for conscious patients in pain assessment, while the Behavioral Pain Scale and the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale were used for unconscious patients.ResultsPatients who underwent endotracheal aspiration, wound care, and positioning had higher pain levels during procedure than other time points. Patients in the prone position with HFOT and NIMV applied had the highest pain scores at fourth hour after procedure; this increase was statistically significant (p = .000, p < .05).ConclusionsThe study found that COVID-19 patients in the ICU had pain due to procedural practices and that the level of pain during the procedures was higher because endotracheal aspiration, wound care, and positioning were all short-term procedures. Moreover, prone positioning was found to be associated with pressure-related tissue damage, and patients' pain levels increased with the increasing duration of HFOT and NIMV procedure.     

Adaptation and Initial Validation of the Premature Infant Pain Profile–Revised (PIPP-R) in Brazil

BackgroundThe use of reliable pain assessment measures is essential for scoring and managing pain in infants. The Premature Infant Pain Profile (PIPP) is reliable and valid and has been recently revised. To adapt and validate the PIPP-R into Portuguese and to evaluate its psychometric properties are required to ensure maintenance of meaning and content.AimsThe aim of this study was to culturally adapt to Brazilian Portuguese and explore content validity and construct validity of the Premature Infant Pain Profile–Revised.DesignThis is a methodological study.Participants/SettingsTwo existing data sets of randomized clinical trials previously conducted were used to examine initial construct validity of the prefinal version of the Premature Infant Pain Profile–Revised.MethodsCross-cultural adaptation and validation occurred in four steps. Independent versions of the Premature Infant Pain Profile–Revised were produced, followed by the preparation of a synthetic version. Two back-translated versions were realized by professional translators. An expert committee evaluated idiomatic and semantic equivalence and clarity and relevance of the items. A content validity index was calculated. Finally, a consolidated prefinal version in Portuguese was then produced.ResultsNo difficulties in producing the material were reported. Semantic and idiomatic aspects were considered adequate, and content validity index was 1.0. Premature Infant Pain Profile and Premature Infant Pain Profile–Revised scores were highly correlated for pain after heel lancing and venipuncture (R² = 0.986, p < .001) and for pain associated with analgesic strategies (R² = 0.966-1.00, p < .001).ConclusionsThe Premature Infant Pain Profile–Revised was culturally adapted into Brazilian Portuguese. Appropriate content validity index was determined. Evidence of construct validity was also found. Future studies are warranted to explore the feasibility and other psychometric properties of using the Premature Infant Pain Profile–Revised translated and adapted into Brazilian Portuguese in the clinical setting.     

Validation of the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool in brain-injured critically ill adults

ObjectivePain is a common symptom in the intensive care unit (ICU). Brain-injured patients are often unable to reliably self-report their pain, calling forth the need to use behavioral scales such as the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT). This study aimed to test the reliability and validity of the CPOT use with brain-injured ICU adults.Materials and methodsEight trained staff nurses and a medical student scored the CPOT before and during a nonpainful (ie, gentle touch) and at least 1 painful (eg, turning) procedure. Then, communicative patients self-reported their pain using yes/no and, when possible, on a 0 to 10 Faces Pain Thermometer.ResultsA total of 79 brain-injured ICU patients participated. The intraclass correlation coefficient between trained raters was 0.73 (95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.83) during turning. CPOT scores were significantly higher during turning compared with gentle touch (P< .001) and correlated significantly with self-reports of pain intensity during turning (0.64, P< .01). The receiver operating characteristics curve indicated a cutoff of 2 with a sensitivity of 0.90 and specificity of 0.67.ConclusionsOverall, the CPOT use was found to be reliable and valid in this patient group and is new evidence fulfilling an important gap highlighted in the Society of Critical Care Medicine practice guidelines.     

The Indonesian version of the Premature Infant Pain Profile–Revised: Translation and adaptation of a neonatal pain assessment

PurposePain assessment is a key component of good pain management in hospitalized infants. This study aimed to translate and adapt a version of pain measurement in infants, the Premature Infant Pain Profile Revised (PIPP-R) into Indonesian.MethodThe adaptation process of the measuring instrument used a modified Brislin method which included forward translation, back translation 1, group discussion 1, back translation 2, group discussion 2, and pilot testing on neonatal nurses: feasibility test, inter-rater reliability using intraclass correlation (ICC), and internal consistency using Cronbach's α coefficient.ResultsThe PIPP-R version in English has been translated into Indonesian. In general, nurses assessed this measuring instrument as feasible. The inter-rater reliability showed a high agreement (ICC = 0.968, P = 0.001) and this measuring instrument had good internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.856).ConclusionThe Indonesian version of PIPP-R is easy to use and shows good psychometric properties. The use of this measuring instrument will help nurses and researchers obtain accurate infant pain intensity measurement values.     

The Validity of Vital Signs for Pain Assessment in Critically Ill Adults: A Narrative Review

ObjectivesPain assessment in the intensive care unit (ICU) is challenging because many patients are unable to self-report or exhibit pain-related behaviors. In such situations, vital signs (VS) through continuous monitoring are alternative cues for pain assessment. This review aimed to describe the reliability and validity of VS for ICU pain assessment.DesignNarrative review of the literature.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane.Review/Analysis methodsA narrative review was conducted with a comprehensive search in four databases. Search terms included VS, pain assessment, and ICU.ResultsOut of 1,359 results, 30 studies from 17 countries were included. Heart rate, blood pressure, and respiratory rate were most used for ICU pain assessment. Assessments were performed at rest before procedures, during nociceptive and non-nociceptive procedures, and after procedures. Increases in respiratory rate were clinically significant by more than 25% during nociceptive procedures (e.g., endotracheal suctioning, turning) compared with rest/pre-procedures in five studies. Correlations of VS with self-reported pain (reference standard measure) and behavioral pain scores (alternative measure) were absent or weak.ConclusionsVS are not valid indicators for ICU pain assessment. Increases of respiratory rate may be a cue for the detection of pain. However, fluctuations in respiratory rate can be influenced by opioids or controlled ventilation mode. Our results dissuade the use of VS for pain assessment because of the lack of association with ICU pain reference standards. Other physiologic measures of pain in critically ill adults should be explored.     

Validation of the Dutch Version of the Breakthrough Pain Assessment Tool in Patients With Cancer

ContextEssential for adequate management of breakthrough cancer pain is a combination of accurate (re-)assessment and a personalized treatment plan. The Breakthrough Pain Assessment Tool (BAT) has been proven to be a brief, multidimensional, reliable, and valid questionnaire for the assessment of breakthrough cancer pain.ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to examine the validity and reliability of the Dutch Language version of the BAT (BAT-DL) in patients with cancer.MethodsThe BAT was forward-backward translated into the Dutch language. Thereafter, the psychometric properties of the BAT-DL were tested, that is factor structure, reliability (internal consistency and test-retest reliability), validity (content validity and construct validity), and the responsiveness to change.ResultsThe BAT-DL confirmed the two-factor structure in 170 patients with cancer: pain severity/impact factor and pain duration/medication efficacy factor. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient was 0.72, and the intraclass correlation for the test-retest reliability was 0.81. The BAT-DL showed to be able to differentiate between different group of patients and correlated significantly with the Brief Pain Inventory. In addition, the BAT-DL was capable to detect clinically important changes over time.ConclusionThe BAT-DL is a valid and reliable questionnaire to assess breakthrough pain in Dutch patients with cancer and is a relevant questionnaire for daily practice.     

Establishing the Reliability,Validity, and Prognostic Utility of the Momentary Pain Catastrophizing Scale for Use in Ecological Momentary Assessment Research

Despite the marked increase in ecological momentary assessment research, few reliable and valid measures of momentary experiences have been established. The goal of this preregistered study was to establish the reliability, validity, and prognostic utility of the momentary Pain Catastrophizing Scale (mPCS), a 3-item measure developed to assess situational pain catastrophizing. Participants in 2 studies of postsurgical pain outcomes completed the mPCS 3 to 5 times per day prior to surgery (N = 494, T = 20,271 total assessments). The mPCS showed good psychometric properties, including multilevel reliability and factor invariance across time. Participant-level average mPCS was strongly positively correlated with dispositional pain catastrophizing as assessed by the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (r = .55 and .69 in study 1 and study 2, respectively). To establish prognostic utility, we then examined whether the mPCS improved prediction of postsurgical pain outcomes above and beyond one-time assessment of dispositional pain catastrophizing. Indeed, greater variability in momentary pain catastrophizing prior to surgery was uniquely associated with increased pain immediately after surgery (b = .58, P = .005), after controlling for preoperative pain levels and dispositional pain catastrophizing. Greater average mPCS score prior to surgery was also uniquely associated with lesser day-to-day improvement in postsurgical pain (b = .01, P = .003), whereas dispositional pain catastrophizing was not (b = −.007, P = .099). These results show that the mPCS is a reliable and valid tool for ecological momentary assessment research and highlight its potential utility over and above retrospective measures of pain catastrophizing.PerspectiveThis article presents the psychometric properties and prognostic utility of a new measure to assess momentary pain catastrophizing. This brief, 3-item measure will allow researchers and clinicians to assess fluctuations in pain catastrophizing during individuals’ daily lives, as well as dynamic relationships between catastrophizing, pain, and related factors.     

The effectiveness of systematic pain assessment on critically ill patient outcomes: A randomised controlled trial

BackgroundEvidence suggests that critically ill patients’ pain may still be underestimated. Systematic approaches to pain assessment are of paramount importance for improving patients’ outcomes.ObjectivesTo investigate the effectiveness of a systematic approach to pain assessment on the incidence and intensity of pain and related clinical outcomes in critically ill patients.MethodsRandomized controlled study with consecutive critically ill patients allocated to either a standard care only or a systematic pain assessment group. The Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS) and the Critical Pain Observation Tool (C-POT) were completed twice daily for all participants. In the intervention group, clinicians were notified of pain scores. Linear Mixed Models (LMM) for the longitudinal effect of the intervention were employed.ResultsA total of 117 patients were included (control: n=61; intervention: n2=56). The incidence of pain (C-POT >2) in the intervention group was significantly lower compared to the control group (p < .001). The intervention had a statistically significant effect on pain intensity (BPS, p = 0.01). The average total morphine equivalent dose in the intervention group was higher than in the control group (p = 0.045), as well as the average total dose of propofol (p = 0.027). There were no statistically significant differences in ICU mortality (23.4% vs 19.3%, p=0.38, odds ratio 0.82 [0.337-1.997]) and length of ICU stay (13.5, SD 11.1 vs 13.9, SD 9.5 days, p= 0.47).ConclusionSystematic pain assessment may be associated with a decrease in the intensity and incidence of pain and influence the pharmacological management of pain and sedation of critically ill patients.     

Development and preliminary validation of the Neonatal Infant Acute Pain Assessment Scale (NIAPAS)

BackgroundSeveral pain scales are available for neonates, but, unfortunately they are only rarely used in clinical practice. To help with the current situation of unrecognized and under-treated pain in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs), we developed an assessment tool in close collaboration with clinical staff.ObjectivesTo develop a multidimensional scale, NIAPAS (the Neonatal Infant Acute Pain Assessment Scale), that is sensitive to the needs of infants in neonatal intensive care units, and to test the validity, reliability, feasibility and clinical utility of the scale for this population.DesignInstrument development and psychometric analysis.MethodsPain assessments (n = 180) were made of 34 neonates born between 23 and 42 weeks gestational age who were undergoing 60 painful procedures (heel lance 77%, tracheal suctioning 23%) in the NICU. Using bedside video recordings, each neonate was observed through three phases of the procedure: 1 min before the procedure, during the procedure (lasting from 0.6 to 11.2 min, mean 2.6), and 1 min after the procedure. In addition, an expert panel (n = 5) and nurses (n = 26) participated in the validation of the scale.ResultsA pool of 8 pain indicators (5 behavioral and 3 physiological indicators), including the gestational age of neonates as a contextual factor, was identified based on the nurses’ expertise in neonatal intensive care. Scores on the NIAPAS changed significantly across the phases (p < 0.001), indicating a good construct validity of the scale. Correlations between the NIAPAS and NIPS (the Neonatal Infant Pain Score) were high (0.751–0.873). The study also demonstrated high coefficients for inter-rater (r = 0.991–0.997) and intra-rater reliability (r = 0.992–1.00), with an internal consistency of 0.723. The content validity was very good (Mean I-CVI 1.00), as evaluated by the expert group. The nurses agreed that the scale was easy to administer and that it helped decision-making in the pain management of infants.ConclusionsThe NIAPAS was shown to be a valid and reliable scale for assessing acute pain in preterm and full-term infants in the NICU. It allows nurses to evaluate infants’ acute pain especially during painful procedures and help to provide pain relief for the infants.     

Psychometric Properties of the Behavioral Pain Scale in Traumatic Brain Injury

BackgroundPain assessment of patients with traumatic brain injury is a challenge because they are unable to self-report their pain experience.AimsTo investigate the psychometric properties of validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the Brazilian version of the Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS-Br) in patients with traumatic brain injury.MethodsThis was an observational, cross-sectional, repeated-measure and analytical study. This study was developed at the medical and surgical ICUs in a high-complexity public hospital at Aracaju, Sergipe, Brazil. Thirty-seven adult patients with moderate or severe TBI were included. This study was completed with 444 independent observations, a pairwise comparison, and was performed simultaneously before, during, and after eye cleaning and endotracheal suctioning of 37 adult patients with moderate to severe traumatic brain injury.ResultsThe BPS-Br had good internal consistency (.7 ≤ α ≤ .9), good discriminant validity (p < .001), moderate to excellent reliability based on inter-rater agreement (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.66-1.00; κ = 0.5-1.0), and high responsiveness (0.7-1.7). The upper limbs subscale had the highest score during the nociceptive procedure (1.8 ± 0.9). Deep sedation affected the increase of grading during painful procedures (p < .001).ConclusionsOur results suggest the BPS-Br is a useful tool for clinical practice to evaluate the pain experienced by patients with traumatic brain injury. Further studies of different samples are needed to evaluate the benefits of systematic pain assessment of critically ill patients.     

Determining Pain Scale Preference in a Veteran Population Experiencing Chronic Pain

The purpose of this study was to determine veteran pain scale preference of four common pain scales: the Faces Scale, the Visual Analog Scale, the Numeric Rating Scale, and the Mankoski Pain Scale. The study also examined the reliability and validity of the Mankoski Pain Scale with the other three scales. A sample of veterans (N = 200) with chronic pain receiving treatment in a residential rehabilitation treatment program (RRTP) and a surgical and specialty care (SSC) outpatient clinic at a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center participated in the study. There was a significant difference between scales in regard to preference, χ²(3) = 64.59, p < .001. A large percentage of the sample preferred the Mankoski Pain Scale (46%). Test–retest of the reliability was comparable for all the scales. Validity of the Mankoski scale was excellent, as it correlated very well with the Numeric (r = .84, p < .001), Analog (r = .83, p < .001), and Faces (r = .78, p < .001) scales. The findings indicate that the Mankoski Pain Scale is a valid and reliable tool for pain with veterans, and it was the preferred scale by veterans for use when describing pain.