Search

Objectives: To examine the frequency and severity of pain and use of pain therapies among long-term care residents with moderate to severe dementia and to explore the factors associated with increased pain severity., Design: Prospective individual data were collected over 1 to 3 days for each participant., Setting: Sixteen long-term care facilities in Alabama, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey., Participants: Residents with moderate to severe cognitive impairment residing in a long-term care facility for at least 7 days were enrolled (N = 205). Residents were 47% female, predominantly white (69%), and 84 years old, on average (SD = 10 years)., Measurements: A comprehensive pain assessment protocol was used to evaluate pain severity and characteristics through medical record review, interviews with nursing home staff, physical examinations, as well as pain observation tools (Mobilization-Observation-Behavior-Intensity-Dementia Pain Scale and Pain Intensity Measure for Persons With Dementia). Known correlates were also assessed (agitation, depression, and sleep)., Results: Experts' pain evaluations indicated that residents' usual pain was mild (mean = 1.6/10), and most experienced only intermittent pain (70%). However, 45% of residents experienced moderate to severe worst pain. Of residents, 90% received a pain therapy, with acetaminophen (87%) and opioids (32%) commonly utilized. Only 3% had a nondrug therapy documented in the medical record. The only resident characteristic that was significantly associated with pain severity was receipt of an opioid in the past week., Conclusion: Using a comprehensive pain assessment protocol, we found that most nursing home residents with moderate to severe dementia had mild usual, intermittent pain and the vast majority received at least one pain therapy in the previous week. Although these findings reflect improvements in pain management compared with older studies, there is still room for improvement in that 45% of the sample experienced moderate to severe pain at some point in the previous week. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:794-802, 2020., (© 2019 The American Geriatrics Society.)

Purpose: The Mobilization-Observation-Behavior-Intensity-Dementia (MOBID) Pain Scale is an observational tool in which raters estimate pain intensity on a 0-10 scale following five standardized movements. The tool has been shown to be valid and reliable in northern European samples and could be useful in the United States (US) for research and clinical purposes. The goal of this study was to examine the validity and reliability of the MOBID among English-speaking nursing home residents in the US., Design: Cross-sectional study., Settings: Sixteen nursing homes in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia and Alabama., Participants: One hundred thirty-eight older adults with dementia and moderate to severe cognitive impairment., Methods: Validity was evaluated using Spearman correlations between the MOBID overall pain intensity score and 1) an expert clinician's pain intensity rating (ECPIR), 2) nursing staff surrogate pain intensity ratings, and 3) known correlates of pain. We assessed internal consistency by Cronbach's alpha., Results: MOBID overall scores were significantly associated with expert clinician's rating of current and worst pain in the past week (rho = 0.54, and 0.57; p < .001, respectively). Statistically significant associations also were found between the MOBID overall score and nursing staff current and worst pain intensity ratings as well as the Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia (rho = 0.29; p < .001). Internal consistency was acceptable (α = 0.83)., Conclusions and Clinical Implications: Result of this study support the use of the MOBID in English-speaking staff and residents in the US. Findings also suggest that the tool can be completed by trained, nonclinical staff., (Copyright © 2018 American Society for Pain Management Nursing. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The goal of this study was to identify a limited set of pain indicators that were most predicive of physical pain. We began with 140 items culled from existing pain observation tools and used a modified Delphi approach followed by statistical analyses to reduce the item pool., Methods: Through the Delphi Method, we created a candidate item set of behavioral indicators. Next, trained staff observed nursing home residents and rated the items on scales of behavior intensity and frequency. We evaluated associations among the items and expert clinicians' assessment of pain intensity., Setting: Four government-owned nursing homes and 12 community nursing homes in Alabama and Southeastern Pennsylvania., Participants: Ninety-five residents (mean age = 84.9 years) with moderate to severe cognitive impairment., Results: Using the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator model, we identified seven items that best predicted clinicians' evaluations of pain intensity. These items were rigid/stiff body or body parts, bracing, complaining, expressive eyes, grimacing, frowning, and sighing. We also found that a model based on ratings of frequency of behaviors did not have better predictive ability than a model based on ratings of intensity of behaviors., Conclusions: We used two complementary approaches-expert opinion and statistical analysis-to reduce a large pool of behavioral indicators to a parsimonious set of items to predict pain intensity in persons with dementia. Future studies are needed to examine the psychometric properties of this scale, which is called the Pain Intensity Measure for Persons with Dementia., (2018 American Academy of Pain Medicine. This work is written by US Government employees and is in the public domain in the US.)

Objective: The goal of this study was to conduct initial psychometric analyses of a seven-item pain intensity measure for persons with dementia (PIMD) that was developed using items from existing pain observational measures., Design and Methods: We evaluated validity by examining associations with an expert clinician's pain intensity rating (ECPIR) and an established pain observation tool (Mobilization Observation Behaviour Intensity Dementia [MOBID]). We also examined correlations between the PIMD and known correlates of pain: depression, sleep disturbances, agitation, painful diagnoses, and caregiver pain reports. We examined the differences between PIMD scores for "at rest" and "during movement" observations. We assessed reliability by calculating Cronbach's alpha and estimating inter-rater reliability using intraclass correlations (ICCs). Finally, we examined whether six additional "recent changes in behavior" items improved the PIMD's ability to predict expert clinicians' pain ratings., Setting: Sixteen nursing homes located in Alabama, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey., Participants: One hundred ninety residents with moderate to severe cognitive impairment, mean age of 84 years, 49.5% female, and 70% white., Results: PIMD during movement scores were highly correlated with the ECPIR and overall MOBID scores. As expected, there were large differences between at rest and during movement PIMD scores. Associations of PIMD with known correlates of pain were generally low and statistically nonsignificant. Internal consistency was supported with a Cronbach alpha of 0.72 and an inter-rater ICC of 0.82 for during movement PIMD scores., Conclusions: Initial evaluation of the PIMD supports its validity and reliability. Additional testing is needed to evaluate the tool's sensitivity to changes in pain intensity., (2018 American Academy of Pain Medicine. This work is written by US Government employees and is in the public domain in the US.)

Objective: To enhance pain practices in nursing homes (NHs) using pain assessment and management algorithms and intense diffusion strategies., Design: A cluster, randomized controlled trial. The intervention consisted of intensive training and support for the use of recommended pain assessment and management practices using algorithms (ALGs). Control facilities received pain education (EDU) only., Setting: Twenty-seven NHs in the greater Puget Sound area participated. Facilities were diverse in terms of size, quality, and ownership., Participants: Data were collected from 485 NH residents; 259 for the intervention and 226 for the control group., Measurements: Resident outcomes were nursing assistant (proxy) report and self-reported resident pain intensity. Process outcomes were adherence to recommended pain practices. Outcomes were measured at baseline, completion of the intervention (ALG) or training (EDU), and again 6 months later., Results: Among 8 comparisons of outcome measures between ALG and EDU (changes in 4 primary pain measures compared at 2 postintervention time points) there was only 1 statistically significant but small treatment difference in proxy- or self-reported pain intensity. Resident-reported worst pain decreased by an average of 0.8 points from baseline to 6 months among the EDU group and increased by 0.2 points among the ALG (P = .005), a clinically nonsignificant difference. There were no statistically significant differences in adherence to clinical guideline practice recommendations between ALG and EDU following the intervention., Conclusions: Future research needs to identify and test effective implementation methods for changing complex clinical practices in NHs, including those to reduce pain., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: No previous studies have created and validated prediction models for outcomes in patients receiving spinal manipulation for care of chronic low back pain (cLBP). We therefore conducted a secondary analysis alongside a dose-response, randomized controlled trial of spinal manipulation., Methods: We investigated dose, pain and disability, sociodemographics, general health, psychosocial measures, and objective exam findings as potential predictors of pain outcomes utilizing 400 participants from a randomized controlled trial. Participants received 18 sessions of treatment over 6-weeks and were followed for a year. Spinal manipulation was performed by a chiropractor at 0, 6, 12, or 18 visits (dose), with a light-massage control at all remaining visits. Pain intensity was evaluated with the modified von Korff pain scale (0-100). Predictor variables evaluated came from several domains: condition-specific pain and disability, sociodemographics, general health status, psychosocial, and objective physical measures. Three-quarters of cases (training-set) were used to develop 4 longitudinal models with forward selection to predict individual "responders" (≥50% improvement from baseline) and future pain intensity using either pretreatment characteristics or post-treatment variables collected shortly after completion of care. The internal validity of the predictor models were then evaluated on the remaining 25% of cases (test-set) using area under the receiver operating curve (AUC), R(2), and root mean squared error (RMSE)., Results: The pretreatment responder model performed no better than chance in identifying participants who became responders (AUC = 0.479). Similarly, the pretreatment pain intensity model predicted future pain intensity poorly with low proportion of variance explained (R(2) = .065). The post-treatment predictor models performed better with AUC = 0.665 for the responder model and R(2) = 0.261 for the future pain model. Post-treatment pain alone actually predicted future pain better than the full post-treatment predictor model (R(2) = 0.350). The prediction errors (RMSE) were large (19.4 and 17.5 for the pre- and post-treatment predictor models, respectively)., Conclusions: Internal validation of prediction models showed that participant characteristics preceding the start of care were poor predictors of at least 50% improvement and the individual's future pain intensity. Pain collected shortly after completion of 6 weeks of study intervention predicted future pain the best.

Background: The third iteration of the Canine Atopic Dermatitis Extent and Severity Index (CADESI-03) is the only tool rigorously validated for canine atopic dermatitis (CAD) lesion scoring. The CADESI-03 requires 248 evaluations, limiting its widespread use., Hypothesis/objectives: The goal of the study was to develop and validate a practical method of grading CAD lesions that requires scoring only the frequently affected body regions., Animals: Fifty-seven privately owned atopic dogs were used in the study., Methods: The Canine Atopic Dermatitis Lesion Index (CADLI) was evaluated in an open, multicentre reliability study. Validity was assessed with expert opinion (content validity) and comparison of CADLI with existing disease severity measures (construct and criterion validity). Reliability was evaluated by analysing repeated observations of each dog. Convenience was assessed in terms of the time required to complete the scale., Results: The CADLI scores correlated with overall assessment scores (r = 0.60, P < 0.001, linear mixed model) and pruritus severity scores (r = 0.53, P < 0.001, linear mixed model), establishing construct validity. The CADLI was strongly correlated with CADESI-03 (r = 0.84, P < 0.001, linear mixed model), establishing criterion validity. The CADLI values obtained by two observers correlated very strongly (r = 0.91, P < 0.001), as did the repeat values for the same observer (r = 0.98, P < 0.001). The mean time to complete the CADLI was less than that required for CADESI-03 (1.9 and 12.6 min, respectively), a highly significant difference (P < 0.001)., Conclusion and Clinical Importance: The CADLI was found to be an effective measure of CAD lesion severity, strongly correlating with CADESI-03. The convenience of CADLI makes it suitable for use in both clinical research and practice., (© 2012 The Authors. Veterinary Dermatology © 2012 ESVD and ACVD.)

Context: Experts agree that pain assessment in noncommunicative persons requires data from sources that do not rely on self-report, including proxy reports, health history, and observation of pain behaviors. However, there is little empirical evidence to guide clinicians in weighting or combining these sources to best approximate the person's experience., Objectives: The aim of this exploratory study was to identify a combination of observer-dependent pain indicators that would be significantly more predictive of self-reported pain intensity than any single indicator. Because self-reported pain is usually viewed as the criterion measure for pain, self-reported usual and worst pains were the dependent variables., Methods: The sample consisted of 326 residents (mean age: 83.2 years; 69% female) living in one of 24 nursing homes. Independent variables did not rely on self-report: surrogate reports from certified nursing assistants (CNAs) using the Iowa Pain Thermometer (IPT), Checklist of Nonverbal Pain Indicators (CNPI), Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia (CSDD), Pittsburgh Agitation Scale (PAS), number of painful diagnoses, and Minimum Data Set (MDS) pain variables., Results: In univariate analyses, the CNA IPT scores were correlated most highly with self-reported pain. The final multivariate model for self-reported usual pain included CNA IPT, CSDD, PAS, and education; this model accounted for only 14% of the variance. The more extensive of the two final models for worst pain included MDS pain frequency, CSDD, CNA IPT, CNPI, and age (R(2)=0.14)., Conclusion: Additional research is needed to develop a predictive pain model for nonverbal persons., (Copyright © 2011 U.S. Cancer Pain Relief Committee. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To examine and compare the psychometric properties of two common observational pain assessment tools used in persons with dementia., Design: In a cross-sectional descriptive study nursing home (NH) residents were videotaped at rest and during a structured movement procedure. Following one training session and one practice session, two trained graduate nursing research assistants independently scored the tapes using the two pain observation tools., Setting: Fourteen NHs in Western Washington State participating in a randomized controlled trial of an intervention to enhance pain assessment and management., Participants: Sixty participants with moderate to severe pain were identified by nursing staff or chosen based on the pain items from the most recent Minimum Data Set assessment., Measures: Checklist of Nonverbal Pain Indicators (CNPI) and the Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia (PAINAD), demographic and pain-related data (Minimum Data Set), nursing assistant reports of participants' usual pain intensity, and Pittsburgh Agitation Scale., Results: Internal consistency for both tools was good except for the CNPI at rest for one rater. Inter-rater reliability for pain presence was fair (K = 0.25 for CNPI with movement; K = 0.31 for PAINAD at rest) to moderate (K = 0.43 for CNPI at rest; K = 0.54 for PAINAD with movement). There were significant differences in mean CNPI and PAINAD scores at rest and during movement, providing support for construct validity. However, both tools demonstrated marked floor effects, particularly when participants were at rest., Conclusions: Despite earlier studies supporting the reliability and validity of the CNPI and the PAINAD, findings from the current study indicate that these measures warrant further study with clinical users, should be used cautiously both in research and clinical settings and only as part of a comprehensive approach to pain assessment.

Background Context: The optimal number of visits for the care of cervicogenic headache (CGH) with spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is unknown.Purpose: The present study aimed to identify the dose-response relationship between visits for SMT and chronic CGH outcomes and to evaluate the efficacy of SMT by comparison with a light-massage control.Study Design/setting: This is a two-site, open-label randomized controlled trial.Patient Sample: Participants were 256 adults with chronic CGH.Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was days with CGH in the previous 4 weeks evaluated at the 12- and 24-week primary end points. Secondary outcomes included CGH days at remaining end points, pain intensity, disability, perceived improvement, medication use, and patient satisfaction.Methods: Participants were randomized to four dose levels of chiropractic SMT: 0, 6, 12, or 18 sessions. They were treated three times per week for 6 weeks and received a focused light-massage control at sessions when SMT was not assigned. Linear dose effects and comparisons with the no-manipulation control group were evaluated at 6, 12, 24, 39, and 52 weeks. The present study was funded by the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (R01AT006330) and is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01530321). The authors declare no conflicts of interest.Results: A linear dose-response was observed for all follow-ups, a reduction of approximately 1 CGH day/4 weeks per additional 6 SMT visits (p<.05); a maximal effective dose could not be determined. Cervicogenic headache days/4 weeks were reduced from about 16 to 8 for the highest and most effective dose of 18 SMT visits. Mean differences in CGH days/4 weeks between 18 SMT visits and control were -3.3 (p=.004) and -2.9 (p=.017) at the primary end points, and were similar in magnitude at the remaining end points (p<.05). Differences between other SMT doses and control were smaller in magnitude (p>.05). Cervicogenic headache intensity showed no important improvement nor differed by dose. Other secondary outcomes were generally supportive of the primary outcome.Conclusions: There was a linear dose-response relationship between SMT visits and days with CGH. For the highest and most effective dose of 18 SMT visits, CGH days were reduced by half and about 3 more days per month than for the light-massage control. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]