Search

Background: A common method of pain assessment is the numerical rating scale, where patients are asked to rate their pain on a scale from 0 to 10, where 0 is "no pain" and 10 is "pain as bad as you can imagine". We hypothesize such language is suboptimal as it involves a test of a cognitive skill, imagination, in the assessment of symptom severity. Methods: We used a large-scale online research registry, ResearchMatch, to conduct a randomized controlled trial to compare the distributions of pain scores of two different pain scale anchors. We recruited adults located in the United States who reported a chronic pain problem (> 3 months) and were currently in pain. Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive pain assessment based on a modified Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), where the anchor for a score of 10 was either "extremely severe pain", or the original BPI, with the anchor "pain as bad as you can imagine". Participants in both groups also answered additional questions about pain, other symptomatology and creativity. Results: Data were obtained from 405 participants for the modified and 424 for the original BPI. Distribution of responses to pain questions were similar between groups (all p-values ≥ 0.12). We did not see evidence that the relationship between pain score and the anchor text differed based on self-perceived creativity (all interaction p-values ≥ 0.2). However, in the key analysis, correlations between current pain assessments and known correlates (fatigue, anxiety, depression, current pain compared to a typical day, pain compared to other people) were stronger for "extreme" vs. "imaginable" anchor text (p = 0.005). Conclusion: Pain rating scales should utilize the modified anchor text "extremely severe pain" instead of "pain as bad as you can imagine". Further research should explore the effects of anchors for other symptoms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Extensive media coverage and potential controversy about COVID-19 vaccination during the pandemic may have affected people's general attitudes towards vaccination. We sought to describe key psychological antecedents related to vaccination and assess how these vary temporally in relationship to the pandemic and availability of COVID-19 vaccination. As part of an ongoing online study, we recruited a national (U.S.) sample of young gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (N = 1,227) between October 2019 and June 2021, and assessed the "4Cs" (antecedents of vaccination; range = 1–5). Overall, men had high levels of confidence (trust in vaccines; M = 4.13), calculation (deliberation; M = 3.97) and collective responsibility (protecting others; M = 4.05) and low levels of complacency (not perceiving disease risk; M = 1.72). In multivariable analyses, confidence and collective responsibility varied relative to the pandemic phase/vaccine availability, reflecting greater hesitancy during later stages of the pandemic. Antecedents also varied by demographic characteristics. Findings suggest negative effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on key antecedents of general vaccination and identify potential targets for interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To determine whether initiating saline nasal irrigation after COVID-19 diagnosis reduces hospitalization and death in high-risk outpatients compared with observational controls, and if irrigant composition impacts severity. Methods: Participants 55 and older were enrolled within 24 hours of a + PCR COVID-19 test between September 24 and December 21, 2020. Among 826 screened, 79 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to add 2.5 mL povidone-iodine 10% or 2.5 mL sodium bicarbonate to 240 mL of isotonic nasal irrigation twice daily for 14 days. The primary outcome was hospitalization or death from COVID-19 within 28 days of enrollment by daily self-report confirmed with phone calls and hospital records, compared to the CDC Surveillance Dataset covering the same time. Secondary outcomes compared symptom resolution by irrigant additive. Results: Seventy-nine high-risk participants were enrolled (mean [SD] age, 64 [8] years; 36 [46%] women; 71% Non-Hispanic White), with mean BMI 30.3. Analyzed by intention-to-treat, by day 28, COVID-19 symptoms resulted in one ED visit and no hospitalizations in 42 irrigating with alkalinization, one hospitalization of 37 in the povidone-iodine group, (1.27%) and no deaths. Of nearly three million CDC cases, 9.47% were known to be hospitalized, with an additional 1.5% mortality in those without hospitalization data. Age, sex, and percentage with pre-existing conditions did not significantly differ by exact binomial test from the CDC dataset, while reported race and hospitalization rate did. The total risk of hospitalization or death (11%) was 8.57 times that of enrolled nasal irrigation participants (SE = 2.74; P =.006). Sixty-two participants completed daily surveys (78%), averaging 1.8 irrigations/day. Eleven reported irrigation-related complaints and four discontinued use. Symptom resolution was more likely for those reporting twice daily irrigation (X 2 = 8.728, P =.0031) regardless of additive. Conclusion: SARS-CoV-2+ participants initiating nasal irrigation were over 8 times less likely to be hospitalized than the national rate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]