Exploring the Face Validity of the Pain Numeric Rating Scale Among Healthcare Providers.

IF 1.5 3区 医学 Q4 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Peyton Link, Aardhra M Venkatachalam, Veronica Aguilera, Sonja E Stutzman, DaiWai M Olson
{"title":"Exploring the Face Validity of the Pain Numeric Rating Scale Among Healthcare Providers.","authors":"Peyton Link,&nbsp;Aardhra M Venkatachalam,&nbsp;Veronica Aguilera,&nbsp;Sonja E Stutzman,&nbsp;DaiWai M Olson","doi":"10.1097/JNN.0000000000000600","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Healthcare providers (HCPs) use the numeric rating scale (NRS) under the assumption that it provides reliable information from which to make decisions regarding analgesic administration. METHODS: We explored the face validity of the NRS using a prospective single-blinded observational design. Pre and post NRS scores were obtained from HCPs who submerged their hand in a bucket of ice water (pain stimulus). RESULTS: Despite a consistent similar pain source, individual HCPs rated their pain very differently (range, 2–10), and there was a significant difference in self-estimated pain tolerance (μ = 7.06 [SD, 1.43]) and actual pain scores (μ = 6.35 [SD, 2.2]; t = 4.08, P < .001). CONCLUSION: The findings indicate a limitation in the face validity of the NRS. The high variance in NRS scores reaffirms the subjectivity of pain perception and brings into question the utility of using NRS scores when determining analgesic dosages.","PeriodicalId":50113,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Neuroscience Nursing","volume":"53 5","pages":"215-219"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Neuroscience Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/JNN.0000000000000600","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Healthcare providers (HCPs) use the numeric rating scale (NRS) under the assumption that it provides reliable information from which to make decisions regarding analgesic administration. METHODS: We explored the face validity of the NRS using a prospective single-blinded observational design. Pre and post NRS scores were obtained from HCPs who submerged their hand in a bucket of ice water (pain stimulus). RESULTS: Despite a consistent similar pain source, individual HCPs rated their pain very differently (range, 2–10), and there was a significant difference in self-estimated pain tolerance (μ = 7.06 [SD, 1.43]) and actual pain scores (μ = 6.35 [SD, 2.2]; t = 4.08, P < .001). CONCLUSION: The findings indicate a limitation in the face validity of the NRS. The high variance in NRS scores reaffirms the subjectivity of pain perception and brings into question the utility of using NRS scores when determining analgesic dosages.
探讨医疗服务提供者疼痛数值评定量表的面部效度。
摘要:背景:医疗保健提供者(HCPs)使用数字评定量表(NRS)的假设下,它提供可靠的信息,从中作出决策有关镇痛给药。方法:我们采用前瞻性单盲观察设计来探索NRS的面部效度。HCPs将手浸入一桶冰水(疼痛刺激)中,获得NRS前后评分。结果:尽管疼痛源一致相似,但个体HCPs对疼痛的评分差异很大(范围,2-10),自我估计的疼痛耐受力(μ = 7.06 [SD, 1.43])和实际疼痛评分(μ = 6.35 [SD, 2.2])存在显著差异;t = 4.08, P < 0.001)。结论:研究结果表明NRS的面效度存在局限性。NRS评分的高方差再次证实了疼痛感知的主观性,并对在确定镇痛剂量时使用NRS评分的实用性提出了质疑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Neuroscience Nursing
Journal of Neuroscience Nursing CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-NURSING
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
30.40%
发文量
110
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Neuroscience Nursing (JNN), the official journal of the American Association of Neuroscience Nurses, contains original articles on advances in neurosurgical and neurological techniques as they affect nursing care, theory and research, as well as commentary on the roles of the neuroscience nurse in the health care team. The journal provides information to nurses and health care professionals working in diverse areas of neuroscience patient care such as multi-specialty and neuroscience intensive care units, general neuroscience units, combination units (neuro/ortho, neuromuscular/rehabilitation, neuropsychiatry, neurogerontology), rehabilitation units, medical-surgical units, pediatric units, emergency and trauma departments, and surgery. The information is applicable to professionals working in clinical, research, administrative, and educational settings.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信