Search

Inconsistent and inadequate pain assessment practices in cerebral palsy (CP) have resulted from a lack of standardisation of pain assessment, limited use of appropriate tools and failure to integrate disability and biopsychosocial models. To assist with improving consistency, this study aimed to establish consensus from key stakeholders regarding domains considered essential for measuring chronic pain in children and young people with CP. A modified electronic Delphi study was conducted on 83 stakeholders, including clinicians, researchers, people with CP and parents of children with CP. Participants rated 18 domains sourced from existing literature as either "core", "recommended", "exploratory" or "not required". After two rounds of surveys, 12 domains were considered core: pain location, pain frequency, pain intensity, changeable factors, impact on emotional wellbeing, impact on participation, pain communication, influence on quality of life, physical impacts, sleep, pain duration and pain expression. These domains reflect the complexity of pain in a heterogeneous population where medical comorbidities are common and communication and intellectual limitations impact significantly on the ability of many to self-report. The domains will be utilised to build a framework of pain assessment specific to children and young people with CP guided by the biopsychosocial model. Chronic pain is under-identified and poorly assessed in the cerebral palsy (CP) population. The perspectives of clinicians, researchers and consumers are vital for developing a framework for chronic pain assessment in CP. Consensus of key stakeholders found 12 domains considered essential to incorporate into a chronic pain assessment model in CP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Chronic conditions are the leading cause of mortality, morbidity and disability in children. However, children and caregivers are rarely involved in identifying research priorities, which may limit the value of research in supporting patient-centred practice and policy., Objective: To identify priorities of patients, caregivers and health professionals for research in childhood chronic conditions and describe the reason for their choices., Setting: An Australian paediatric hospital and health consumer organisations., Methods: Recruited participants (n=73) included patients aged 8 to 14 years with a chronic condition (n=3), parents/caregivers of children aged 0 to 18 years with a chronic condition (n=19), representatives from consumer organisations (n=13) and health professionals including clinicians, researches (n=38) identified and discussed research priorities. Transcripts were thematically analysed., Results: Seventy-eight research questions were identified. Five themes underpinned participants' priorities: maintaining a sense of normality (enabling participation in school, supporting social functioning, promoting understanding and acceptance), empowering self-management and partnership in care (overcoming communication barriers, gaining knowledge and skills, motivation for treatment adherence, making informed decisions, access and understanding of complementary and alternative therapies),strengthening ability to cope (learning to have a positive outlook, preparing for home care management, transitioning to adult services), broadening focus to family (supporting sibling well-being, parental resilience and financial loss, alleviating caregiver burden), and improving quality and scope of health and social care (readdressing variability and inequities, preventing disease complications and treatment side effects, identifying risk factors, improving long-term outcomes, harnessing technology, integrating multidisciplinary services)., Conclusion: Research priorities identified by children, caregivers and health professionals emphasise a focus on life participation, psychosocial well-being, impact on family and quality of care. These priorities may be used by funding and policy organisations in establishing a paediatric research agenda., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)