Are Pain Ratings Irrelevant?

Pain perception during baroreceptor unloading by lower body negative pressure

BACKGROUND

People with high blood pressure have reduced sensitivity to pain, known as blood pressure hypoalgesia. One proposed mechanism for this is altered baroreceptor sensitivity. In healthy volunteers, stimulating the carotid baroreceptors causes reduced sensitivity to acute pain; however, this effect may be confounded by a rise in blood pressure due to baroreflex stimulation. The present study tests whether baroreceptor unloading contributes to the physiological mechanism of blood pressure-related hypoalgesia.

METHODS

In the present study, pain perception to thermal stimulation of the forearm was studied in 20 healthy volunteers during baroreceptor unloading by lower body negative pressure (LBNP) at -5 and -20 mmHg. Blood pressure and heart rate were measured continuously throughout. To address issues relating to stimulation order, the sequence of LBNP stimulation was counterbalanced across participants.

RESULTS

Increased heart rate was observed at a LBNP of -20 mmHg, but not -5 mmHg, but neither stimulus had an effect on blood pressure. There was no change in warm or cold sensory detection thresholds, heat or cold pain thresholds nor perceived pain from a 30s long thermal heat stimulus during LBNP.

CONCLUSION

Therefore, baroreceptor unloading with maintained systemic blood pressure did not alter pain perception. The current study does not support the hypothesis that an altered baroreflex may underlie the physiological mechanism of blood pressure-related hypoalgesia.

SIGNIFICANCE

This work provides evidence that, when measured in normotensive healthy young adults, the baroreflex response to simulated hypovolaemia did not lead to reduced pain sensitivity (known as blood pressure hypoalgesia).

Patient-centeredness and psychometric properties of the Defense and Veterans Pain Rating Scale 2.0 (DVPRS)

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to assess the patient-centeredness and psychometric properties of the Defense and Veterans Pain Rating Scale 2.0 (DVPRS) as a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) for pain assessment in a military population.

DESIGN

A critical evaluation of the DVPRS was conducted, considering its fit-for-purpose as a PROM and its patient-centeredness using the National Health Council's Rubric to Capture the Patient Voice.

SETTING

The study focused on the use of the DVPRS within the Department of Defense (DoD) and Veterans Health Administration (VA) healthcare settings.

SUBJECTS

The DVPRS was evaluated based on published studies and information provided by measure developers. The assessment included content validity, reliability, construct validity, and ability to detect change. Patient-centeredness and patient engagement were assessed across multiple domains.

METHODS

Two independent reviewers assessed the DVPRS using a tool/checklist/questionnaire, and any rating discrepancies were resolved through consensus. The assessment included an evaluation of psychometric properties and patient-centeredness based on established criteria.

RESULTS

The DVPRS lacked sufficient evidence of content validity, with no patient involvement in its development. Construct validity was not assessed adequately, and confirmatory factor analysis was not performed. Patient-centeredness and patient engagement were also limited, with only a few domains showing meaningful evidence of patient partnership.

CONCLUSIONS

The DVPRS as a PROM for pain assessment in the military population falls short in terms of content validity, construct validity, and patient-centeredness. It requires further development and validation, including meaningful patient engagement, to meet current standards and best practices for PROMs.

Finding a meaning for pain: Definitions, sense-making, and philosophical health

Pain has proven to be a refractory problem in US healthcare. This paper argues that starting to address this requires viewing pain-assessment as a form of sense-making that occurs between patients and providers. Section I argues that two standard definitions of 'pain' that are thought to subtend pain assessment are not viable. Section II proffers a very different way to think about the meaning of 'pain'. Section III develops this novel account by pairing Rorty's account of hermeneutics with recent developments in the pain-assessment literature. Finally, section four moves beyond Rorty by linking sense-making to philosophical health. Should this prove persuasive, I will have shown an area in biomedicine where philosophy is not an 'optional add on', but a vitally important part of what should be clinical practice.

Personalized pain assessment: What does 'acceptable pain' mean to you?

BACKGROUND

What 'acceptable pain' means may be different for everyone and dependent on the moment and the context. In this text, we explore the concepts of pain acceptability and acceptance. We explain why we need to better explore (un)acceptable pain, to eventually facilitate pain assessment and management.

METHODS

Using different approaches and perspectives (with examples and application from multiple disciplines, i.e. orthopaedics, psychology, pharmacological therapy), we discussed anecdotal examples and included a systematic, scoping and literature review.

RESULTS

We rejected the idea that in the context of chronic pain, acceptability, disability and manageability overlap neatly. Additionally, we rejected the validity of pain intensity rating scales to sufficiently explore individuals' experience of pain. In the one study that met our criteria, a definition of 'acceptable pain' was dropped as participants deemed it inappropriate because it did not address the significant challenges associated with pain. This is important, however, because the acceptability of pain may precede, follow and/or inform the 'pain acceptance' process, which is an important concept associated with better outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Very little is known regarding what 'acceptable pain' may mean to people living with pain. Qualitative studies may improve our understanding of individuals' perceptions, perspectives and expectations as we do not know, for the moment, what 'acceptable pain' may mean to a particular person and, potentially, regarding a specific treatment or other contextual aspects that are not captured with currently used scores and quantitative measures.

SIGNIFICANCE

What does 'acceptable pain' mean may differ between people with painful experiences and may depend on contextual factors. Pain acceptability may be distinct from manageability, and may precede, follow and/or inform the 'pain acceptance' process. This text, rigorously based on a review of the existing literature, defends the idea that acceptable pain should be better studied.

The Effects of Preoperative Pain Education on Pain Severity in Cardiac Surgery Patients: A Pilot Randomized Control Trial

BACKGROUND

There is minimal research on the effect of individualized preoperative education on postoperative pain and postoperative pain medication intake.

AIM

The study objective was to assess the effect of individually tailored preoperative education on postoperative pain severity, number of pain breakthroughs, and use of pain medication in participants receiving the intervention compared to controls.

METHODS

A pilot study with 200 participants was conducted. The experimental group received an informational booklet and discussed their ideas surrounding pain and pain medication with the researcher. Controls received no intervention. Postoperative pain severity was measured by a Numerical Rating System (NRS), which was divided into mild (NRS 1-3), moderate (NRS 4-6), and severe (NRS 7-10).

RESULTS

In the participant cohort, 68.8% of participants were male, and the average age was 60.48±10.7. Average postoperative 48-hour cumulative pain scores were lower in those who received the intervention compared to controls; 50.0 (IQR 35.8-60.0) vs. 65 (IQR 51.0-73.0; p < .01) participants who received the intervention had less frequent pain breakthroughs when compared to controls (3.0 [IQR 2.0-5.0] vs. 6.0 [IQR 4.0-8.0; p < .01]). There was no significant difference in the amount of pain medication taken by either group.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants who receive individualized preoperative pain education are more likely to have decreased postoperative pain.

Phase 2 Assessment of a New Functional Pain Scale by Comparing It to Traditional Pain Scales

Background

Assessment of pain has always been subjective and is commonly assessed using a numeric pain scale (NPS) or Wong-Baker faces scale. The pain intensity score is not standardized and relies on individuals’ past experiences. The disadvantage of using such pain assessment scales and treating the numbers can lead to overdosing on analgesics leading to unwanted side effects. The Robert Packer Hospital/Functional Pain Scale (RPH/FPS) was developed as a tool for the objective assessment of pain and its impact on a patient’s function. 

Aim

The study aimed to validate the RPH/FPS scale against NPS and Wong-Baker faces scale in medical, surgical, and trauma patients. The patients’ were also asked to rank the scales as one (1) being the most preferred to three (3) being the least preferred.

Design

This prospective, observational cohort study compares the two most common pain scales, the NPS and the Wong-Baker Faces, to the RPH/FPS.

Methods

Spearman correlation was used to test for correlation between the three scales, and Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare means between the RPH/FPS and NPS. The study participants were also asked to rate their preferences for the scales by rating the most preferred of the three scales as one (1) and the least preferred number three (3). 

Results

The RPH/FPS had a strong correlation with both the NPS and Wong-Baker Faces scales (RPH/FPS vs. NPS R=0.69, p<0.001: RPH-FPS vs. Wong-Baker Faces R=0.69, P<0.001). As for preferences, the RPH/FPS was ranked first on 36.9% of the surveys followed by NPS on 35.9%, and the Wong-Baker Faces on 22.3%. There were 4.9% of the surveys missing the preference rankings.

Conclusion

The results validate the RPH/FPS scale against the NPS and Wong-Baker Faces scales. This gives the clinicians a tool for objective assessment of pain and its effect on the recovery process, thereby minimizing the observed disconnect that sometimes happens between the reported pain intensity level and the providers' observation of the patient.

Medical-Surgical Patients' and Registered Nurses' Satisfaction and Comprehensiveness of Patient Assessment Using the Clinically Aligned Pain Assessment Tool

BACKGROUND

The pain experience is complex, and nurses are challenged to objectively assess and document patients' subjective reports of pain. There is a clear need for an assessment tool that is easy to use and provides meaningful, actionable information for patients and nurses.

AIMS

This study explored nurses' and patients' satisfaction with the Clinically Aligned Pain Assessment (CAPA) as well as nurses' charting.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

A convenience sample of adult patients and nurses on four medical-surgical units in one community hospital.

METHODS

A quantitative, two-group comparison design between patients and nurses using questionnaires to determine satisfaction and a retrospective chart review to determine comprehensiveness of nurse charting.

RESULTS

No significant differences existed between patients' and nurses' responses to seven of eight satisfaction questions The median score for seven of eight questions was 5 (using a 6-point Likert scale with 1 = strongly disagree and 6 = strongly agree), which demonstrated more than 80% agreement (somewhat agree, agree, strongly agree) among both groups that CAPA was superior to the NRS, based on individual responses. The one significant difference (p = 0.03) revealed patients were more likely to respond "agree or strongly agree" compared to nurses regarding the nurse thoroughly addressing patients' needs using CAPA. Inter-rater reliability using CAPA was determined to be 89.5%, and a panel of clinical experts determined CAPA had strong content validity of 88.33%. In addition, 70.41% of nurses charted comprehensively using CAPA.

CONCLUSION

As a result, CAPA was determined to be convenient, accurate, and valuable in guiding intervention decisions.

Opioid Pain Medication Prescription for Chronic Pain in Primary Care Centers: The Roles of Pain Acceptance, Pain Intensity, Depressive Symptoms, Pain Catastrophizing, Sex, and Age

Background: Psychological factors of patients may influence physicians' decisions on prescribing opioid analgesics. However, few studies have sought to identify these factors. The present study had a double objective: (1) To identify the individual factors that differentiate patients who had been prescribed opioids for the management of chronic back pain from those who had not been prescribed opioids and (2) to determine which factors make significant and independent contributions to the prediction of opioid prescribing. Methods: A total of 675 patients from four primary care centers were included in the sample. Variables included sex, age, pain intensity, depressive symptoms, pain catastrophizing, and pain acceptance. Results: Although no differences were found between men and women, participants with chronic noncancer pain who were prescribed opioids were older, reported higher levels of pain intensity and depressive symptoms, and reported lower levels of pain-acceptance. An independent association was found between pain intensity and depressive symptoms and opioid prescribing. Conclusions: The findings suggest that patient factors influence physicians' decisions on prescribing opioids. It may be useful for primary care physicians to be aware of the potential of these factors to bias their treatment decisions.

∗Surgical patients' and registered nurses' satisfaction and Perception of Using the Clinically Aligned Pain Assessment (CAPA©) Tool for Pain Assessment

Pain management is a significant issue in all health care systems. Pain is often mismanaged because of lack of a comprehensive pain assessment. This often leads to inappropriate medication administration, inadequate pain relief, negative patient outcomes, and delayed discharges. There is an opportunity for developing a more comprehensive pain assessment. The Clinically Aligned Pain Assessment (CAPA©) pain tool was developed by the University of Utah.. It assesses 5 dimensions of pain: comfort, change in pain, pain control, functioning, and sleep. The purpose of the study was to determine if the patients and nurses were more satisfied discussing pain with CAPA© or the numeric rating scale (NRS) and words to describe pain, intensity, location, duration, and aggravating and/or alleviating factors (WILDA) tool. This study had a 2-group comparison design with mixed methods approach. One group comprised patients and the other group comprised nurses. There were 63 nurses and 95 patients enrolled in the study at two perioperative hospitals. The results demonstrated that the patients and nurses were more satisfied with using the CAPA© tool than the NRS/WILDA. The CAPA© tool allows for a more comprehensive way to assess pain which has the potential to create more effective treatments for pain, improve discharge time, and positive patient outcomes.

The Multimodal Assessment Model of Pain: A Novel Framework for Further Integrating the Subjective Pain Experience Within Research and Practice

OBJECTIVES

Pain assessment is enigmatic. Although clinicians and researchers must rely upon observations to evaluate pain, the personal experience of pain is fundamentally unobservable. This raises the question of how the inherent subjectivity of pain can and should be integrated within assessment. Current models fail to tackle key facets of this problem, such as what essential aspects of pain are overlooked when we only rely on numeric forms of assessment, and what types of assessment need to be prioritized to ensure alignment with our conceptualization of pain as a subjective experience. We present the multimodal assessment model of pain (MAP) as offering practical frameworks for navigating these challenges.

METHODS

This is a narrative review.

RESULTS

MAP delineates qualitative (words, behaviors) and quantitative (self-reported measures, non-self-reported measures) assessment and regards the qualitative pain narrative as the best available root proxy for inferring pain in others. MAP offers frameworks to better address pain subjectivity by: (1) delineating separate criteria for identifying versus assessing pain. Pain is identified through narrative reports, while comprehensive assessment is used to infer why pain is reported; (2) integrating compassion-based and mechanism-based management by both validating pain reports and assessing underlying processes; (3) conceptualizing comprehensive pain assessment as both multidimensional and multimodal (listening/observing and measuring); and (4) describing how qualitative data help validate and contextualize quantitative pain measures.

DISCUSSION

MAP is expected to help clinicians validate pain reports as important and legitimate, regardless of other findings, and help our field develop more comprehensive, valid, and compassionate approaches to assessing pain.

Imagined Examples of Painful Experiences Provided by Chronic Low Back Pain Patients and Attributed a Pain Numerical Rating Score

Objective

The pain numerical rating scale (NRS) is widely used in pain research and clinical settings to represent pain intensity. For an individual with chronic pain, NRS reporting requires representation of a complex subjective state as a numeral. To evaluate the process of NRS reporting, this study examined the relationship between reported pain NRS levels and imagined painful events reported by study subjects.

Design

A total of 149 subjects with chronic low back pain characterized by the NIH Research Task Force Recommended Minimal Dataset reported current pain NRS and provided imagined examples of painful experiences also attributing to these an NRS. We present a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the 797 pain examples provided by the study subjects.

Results

Study subjects tended to be able to imagine both highly painful 10/10 events and non-painful events with relative agreement across subjects. While NRS for the pain examples tended to increase with example severity, for many types of examples there was wide dispersion around the mean pain level. Examination of pain examples indicated unexpected relationships between current pain and the intensity and nature of the imagined painful events.

Conclusions

Our results indicate that the pain NRS does not provide a reliably interpretable assessment of current physical pain intensity for an individual with chronic pain at a specific moment.

No Relationships Between the Within-Subjects' Variability of Pain Intensity Reports and Variability of Other Bodily Sensations Reports

Purpose

The subjective nature of pain assessment and its large variance negatively affect patient–health care provider communication and reduce the assay sensitivity of pain clinical trials. Given the lack of an objective gold standard measure, identifying the source (true or error) of the within-subject variability of pain reports is a challenge. By assessing the within-subjects variability of pain and taste reports, alongside with interoceptive measures, the current study is aimed to investigate if the ability to reliably report bodily sensations is a cross-modal characteristic.

Patients and Methods

This prospective study enrolled healthy volunteers from local universities. After consenting, subjects underwent the Focus Analgesia Selection Task (FAST), to assess within-subjects variability of pain reports in response to experimental noxious stimuli; a taste task, which similarly assesses within-subjects variability of tastes (salty and sweet) intensity reports; and the heartbeat perception task, an interoceptive task aimed to assess how accurate subjects are in monitoring and reporting their own heartbeat. In addition, all subjects completed the Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness (MAIA), the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Spearman’s correlations were used to assess relations between all measures.

Results

Sixty healthy volunteers were recruited. Variability of intensity reports of different modalities were independent of each other (P > 0.05 for all correlations). The only correlation found was within modality, between variability of intensity reports of salt and sweet tastes (Spearman’s r = 0.477, P < 0.001). No correlations were found between any of the task results and questionnaire results.

Conclusion

Within-subjects variability of pain reports do not relate to variability of reports of other modalities or to interoceptive awareness. Further research is ongoing to investigate the clinical relevance of within-subjects’ variability of pain reports.

Quality Improvement Project: Replacing the Numeric Rating Scale with a Clinically Aligned Pain Assessment (CAPA) Tool

CAPA is a multifaceted pain assessment tool that was adopted at a large tertiary Midwest hospital to replace the numeric scale for adult patients who could self-report their pain experience. This article describes the process of implementation and the effect on patient satisfaction scores. Use of the tool is supported by the premise that pain assessment entails more than just pain intensity and that assessment is an exchange of meaning between patients and clinicians dependent on internal and external factors. Implementation of the tool was a transformative process resulting in modest increases in patient satisfaction scores with pain management. Patient reports that "staff did everything to manage pain" had the biggest gains and were sustained for more than 2 years. The CAPA tool meets regulatory requirements for pain assessment.

Chronic Pain as a Hypothetical Construct: A Practical and Philosophical Consideration

Pain has been defined by the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) as “an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage, or described in terms of such damage.” Chronic pain is usually described as pain that has persisted for 3–6 months and/or beyond the expected time of healing. The numerical pain rating (NPR) is the customary metric and often considered as a proxy for the subjective experience of chronic pain. This definition of pain (chronic) has been of significant heuristic value. However, the definition and the models it has spawned tend to encourage the interpretation of pain as a measurable entity and implies that the patient’s experience of pain can be fully comprehended by someone other than the person in pain. Several major models of pain have been scrutinized and found to propagate the notion of pain as a ‘thing’ and fall prey to biomedical reductionism and Cartesian (mind-body) dualism. Furthermore, the NPR does not appear to capture the complexity of chronic pain and correlates poorly with other clinically meaningful outcomes. It, and other aspects of the current notion of chronic pain, appear to be an extension of our reliance on the philosophical principles of reductionism and materialism. These and other shortcomings identified in the IASP definition have resulted in an increased interest in a reexamination and possible updating of our view of pain (chronic) and its definition. The present paper describes an alternative view of pain, in particular chronic pain. It argues that chronic pain should be understood as a separate phenomenon from, rather than an extension of, acute pain and interpreted as a hypothetical construct (HC). HCs are contrasted to intervening variables (IV) and the use of HCs in science is illustrated. The acceptance of the principles of nonlinearity and emergence are seen as important characteristics. The practical implications and barriers of this philosophical shift for assessment, treatment, and education are explored. The patient’s narrative is presented as a potential source of important phenomenological data relating to their ‘experience’ of pain. It is further proposed that educational and academic endeavors incorporate a discussion of the process of chronification and the role of complexity theory.

How do medical students use and understand pain rating scales?

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Pain is a multidimensional experience that is difficult to describe and to assess. To scale current pain, assessment refers to a maximum level of pain, but little is known about this process. Further, clinicians tend to underestimate patients' pain, with or without patients' own reports, and to underestimate to a greater extent with more clinical experience, possibly due to recalibration of a personal pain scale with increasing exposure to severe pain. We sought to determine how medical students rated pain in early years of clinical exposure, and in relation to experience of their own and others' worst pains.

METHODS

An online survey sampled medical students' rating and description of their own worst pain and of that witnessed in another; also what would cause the maximum level of pain and what behaviours characterised it. Last, they indicated their preference among pain scales.

RESULTS

Thirty-six medical students provided responses, the majority in their first six months of clinical exposure. Students' own worst pain was rated a mean of 6.7/10 (s.d. 1.6) on a numerical scale; causes were diverse but with many bone fractures. Mean worst pain observed in another was rated 8.6/10 (s.d. 1.4); causes included fractures, gallstones, and sickle cell crises. Another's worst pain was significantly higher (mean 9.4, s.d. 0.8 vs mean 8.0 s.d. 1.4) when rated after the student's own pain than before it (presentation order randomised). We found no effect of clinical exposure on estimation of worst pain in another person, nor was there a personal tendency to rate pain using more or less extreme values. Students expected pain of 10/10 to be presented with many verbal, facial and whole body behaviours, and signs of physiological stress. Collectively, behavioural descriptions were rich and varied, but with many incompatibilities: for instance, between 'writhing' and 'rigidity' expected in the person with extreme pain. Most students preferred the numerical rating scale over visual analogue and verbal scales.

CONCLUSIONS

The study requires replication, particularly for clinical experience, where we found no significant difference in estimation of another's pain over the first three years of medical students' clinical exposure, but the comparison was underpowered. Despite no systematic individual difference in using pain ratings, there was a marked effect of rating another's worst pain higher when the rater had previously rated his/her own worst pain. This suggests anchoring estimate of another's pain in personal pain experience, and a possible way to mitigate clinicians' underestimation of patients' pain. Medical students' recognition of the importance of facial expression in indicating another's pain severity was encouraging, but most students anticipated only a narrow range of behaviours associated with extreme pain, thereby excluding other authentic behaviours.

IMPLICATIONS

Many clinical guidelines mandate regular pain assessment for hospital inpatients, and encourage routine assessment in community and outpatient settings, in order to decide on and monitor treatment. Replication and elaboration of this study could extend our understanding of how clinicians interpret pain scales completed by patients, and how they estimate patients' pain.

Hope, Symptoms, and Palliative Care

BACKGROUND

Hope is important to patients with cancer. Identifying factors that influence hope is important. Anxiety, depression, fatigue, and pain are reported to impair hope. The objective of this study was to determine whether age, gender, marital status, duration of cancer, symptoms, or symptom burden measured by the sum of severity scores on the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) correlated with hope measured by the Herth Hope Index (HHI).

METHODS

Patients with advanced cancer in a palliative care unit participated. Demographics including age, gender, marital status, cancer site, and duration of cancer were collected. Individuals completed the ESAS and HHI. Spearman correlation and linear regression were used to assess associations adjusting for gender (male vs female), age (< 65 vs ≥ 65 years), marital status (married or living with a partner vs other), and duration of cancer (≤ 12 vs > 12 months).

RESULTS

One hundred and ninety-seven were participated in the study, of which 55% were female with a mean age of 61 years (standard deviation 11). Hope was not associated with gender, age, marital status, or duration of cancer. In univariable analysis, hope inversely correlated with ESAS score (-0.28), lack of appetite (-0.22), shortness of breath (-0.17), depression (-0.39), anxiety (-0.32), and lack of well-being (-0.33); only depression was clinically relevant. In multivariable analysis, total symptom burden weakly correlated with hope; only depression remained clinically significant.

DISCUSSION

This study found correlation between symptom burden and hope was not clinically relevant but was so for depression.

CONCLUSION

Among 9 ESAS symptoms, only depression had a clinically relevant correlation with hope.