Search

A kuma A .O . & J ordan S . (2012) Pain management in neonates: a survey of nurses and doctors. Journal of Advanced Nursing 68(6), 1288-1301. Abstract Aim. This paper is a report of a descriptive survey of nurses' and doctors' knowledge and reported practice regarding procedural pain assessment and management in neonatal intensive care units. Background. There are concerns that pain is often unrecognized and under-treated in neonates. Current guidelines advocate administration of analgesia and comfort measures, but may be vulnerable to inter-professional differences in guideline implementation. Methods. All nurses and doctors working in all seven neonatal intensive care units in one area of the United Kingdom were surveyed between January to August 2007. Lead clinicians distributed and collected anonymous questionnaires. Findings. Response rate was 44% (62 doctors, 137 nurses). Internal consistency was high, overall Cronbach's alpha 0·976. Respondents were knowledgeable, mean score 82% (SD13·3%). They agreed that neonates feel pain and need analgesia. Chest drain insertion was perceived to be the most painful procedure, heel-prick the least. Respondents reported that analgesia and comfort measures were not usually administered for most procedures: nurses were more likely than doctors to report adhering to guidelines advocating administration of analgesia and comfort measures. Statistically significant differences between current and optimal practice were acknowledged. Few (21% and 37%) had received training on neonatal pain and fewer (2·5%) employed recognized pain assessment instruments. Pain management guidelines were available to 29(47%) doctors and 85(62%) nurses; 20(18%) reported that these had been audited. Conclusion. Clinicians were knowledgeable about neonatal pain, but gaps between knowledge and practice remain. This hiatus could be bridged by providing research evidence for the efficacy of guidelines incorporating validated pain assessment instruments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Depression is a major problem for mental health. Empirical studies and clinical observations have shown that the symptoms of depression occur across four main domains-emotional, cognitive, somatic and interpersonal. However, commonly used depression assessment scales fail to address the evaluation of interpersonal symptoms, as summarized in this paper. Therefore, a new depression assessment scale, which aimed to evaluate all four domains of depressive symptomatology, was developed. In an initial analysis, a pilot 85-item questionnaire containing possible depressive symptoms was distributed for evaluation to experts from different mental health professions, from which 52 items were subsequently selected for the new multidimensional depression assessment scale. One hundred community participants completed the questionnaire along with the Beck Depression Inventory-II. The results indicated that the new depression scale had good psychometric properties. It was found to be reliable and valid for the assessment of depression severity and symptomatology, though it is emphasized that these data are only preliminary and based on a relatively healthy sample. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Key Practitioner Message [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Compensatory health beliefs, beliefs that healthy behaviours can compensate or neutralise unhealthy behaviours, have been proposed as one way of understanding why people engage in health-risk behaviours (Knäuper, B., Rabiau, M., Cohen, O., & Patriciu, N. (2004). Compensatory health beliefs scale development and psychometric properties. Psychology and Health, 19, 607–624). However, measuring compensatory health beliefs has proved a challenge, with several recent studies being unable to replicate the psychometric properties of Knäuper et al.'s (2004) scales. The aims of this study were to: (1) test the factor structure of the compensatory health beliefs scale in the UK, (2) examine the predictive validity of the scale by testing the relationships between compensatory health beliefs and health behaviours over a six-month time interval and (3) assess the 6-month test–retest reliability of the scale. A total of 393 participants completed measures of compensatory health beliefs and health behaviours at two time points separated by six months. The findings were potentially problematic for research into compensatory health beliefs: the factor structure was not confirmed, there was little evidence of predictive validity, and test–retest reliability was poor. Further research is required to understand the operation of compensatory health beliefs and to develop the measurement of compensatory health beliefs. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]