Assessment of Wound-Related Pain Experiences of Patients With Chronic Wounds: A Multicenter Cross-Sectional Study in Eastern China.

IF 1.7 3区 医学 Q2 NURSING
Min Wei, Huiling Zheng, Xinyue Xu, Yihong Ji, Xiujuan Yu, Lin Lu, Ying Sun, Zhiying Zhao, Xiaojun Liu, Wei Jiang, Xiya Zhang, Yansen Qiu, Yajuan Weng
{"title":"Assessment of Wound-Related Pain Experiences of Patients With Chronic Wounds: A Multicenter Cross-Sectional Study in Eastern China.","authors":"Min Wei, Huiling Zheng, Xinyue Xu, Yihong Ji, Xiujuan Yu, Lin Lu, Ying Sun, Zhiying Zhao, Xiaojun Liu, Wei Jiang, Xiya Zhang, Yansen Qiu, Yajuan Weng","doi":"10.1097/WON.0000000000001059","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The primary aims of this study were to evaluate the prevalence of wound-related pain (WRP) in patients with chronic wounds and assess the use of pain relief measures.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A cross-sectional study.</p><p><strong>Subjects and setting: </strong>A convenience sample of patients with chronic wounds was recruited from outpatient clinics of 12 hospitals covering 7 of 13 cities in the Jiangsu province located in eastern China from July 10 to August 25, 2020. The sample comprised 451 respondents, and their mean age was 54.85 (SD 19.16) years; 56.1% (253/451) patients were male.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An investigator-designed questionnaire was used to collect pain-related information from patients. The questionnaire consisted of 4 parts: (1) basic demographic and clinical information (patient and wound characteristics); (2) wound baseline pain; (3) wound-related procedural pain and pain relief method; and (4) the effect of WRP on the patient. Pain was assessed using the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) scored from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst pain). Severity of pain was based on NRS scores' classification as mild (1-3), moderate (4-6), and severe (7-10). The survey was conducted from July 10 to August 25, 2020. Participants were instructed on use of the NRS and then completed the questionnaire following dressing change independently.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The 3 most common types of chronic wounds were traumatic ulcers, surgical wounds, and venous leg ulcers. The 3 most prevalent locations were lower limbs, feet, and thorax/abdomen. Of all patients, 62.5% (282/451) and 93.8% (423/451) patients experienced wound baseline pain and wound-related procedural pain, respectively. The mean score of wound baseline pain was 3.76 (SD 1.60) indicating moderate pain. During wound management, the highest pain score was 6.45 (SD 2.75) indicating severe pain; the most severe pain scores were associated with debridement. The use of drugs to relieve wound pain was low, while the use of nondrug-based analgesia was relatively high. Because of WRP, patients with chronic wounds feared dressing changes, hesitated to move, and showed a decline in sleep quality.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Wound baseline pain and wound-related procedural pain were very common in patients with chronic wounds. In the future, targeted intervention plans should be developed by combining drug-based and nondrug-based analgesia according to pain severity.</p>","PeriodicalId":49950,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Wound Ostomy and Continence Nursing","volume":"51 2","pages":"111-116"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Wound Ostomy and Continence Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/WON.0000000000001059","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: The primary aims of this study were to evaluate the prevalence of wound-related pain (WRP) in patients with chronic wounds and assess the use of pain relief measures.

Design: A cross-sectional study.

Subjects and setting: A convenience sample of patients with chronic wounds was recruited from outpatient clinics of 12 hospitals covering 7 of 13 cities in the Jiangsu province located in eastern China from July 10 to August 25, 2020. The sample comprised 451 respondents, and their mean age was 54.85 (SD 19.16) years; 56.1% (253/451) patients were male.

Methods: An investigator-designed questionnaire was used to collect pain-related information from patients. The questionnaire consisted of 4 parts: (1) basic demographic and clinical information (patient and wound characteristics); (2) wound baseline pain; (3) wound-related procedural pain and pain relief method; and (4) the effect of WRP on the patient. Pain was assessed using the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) scored from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst pain). Severity of pain was based on NRS scores' classification as mild (1-3), moderate (4-6), and severe (7-10). The survey was conducted from July 10 to August 25, 2020. Participants were instructed on use of the NRS and then completed the questionnaire following dressing change independently.

Results: The 3 most common types of chronic wounds were traumatic ulcers, surgical wounds, and venous leg ulcers. The 3 most prevalent locations were lower limbs, feet, and thorax/abdomen. Of all patients, 62.5% (282/451) and 93.8% (423/451) patients experienced wound baseline pain and wound-related procedural pain, respectively. The mean score of wound baseline pain was 3.76 (SD 1.60) indicating moderate pain. During wound management, the highest pain score was 6.45 (SD 2.75) indicating severe pain; the most severe pain scores were associated with debridement. The use of drugs to relieve wound pain was low, while the use of nondrug-based analgesia was relatively high. Because of WRP, patients with chronic wounds feared dressing changes, hesitated to move, and showed a decline in sleep quality.

Conclusions: Wound baseline pain and wound-related procedural pain were very common in patients with chronic wounds. In the future, targeted intervention plans should be developed by combining drug-based and nondrug-based analgesia according to pain severity.

评估慢性伤口患者与伤口相关的疼痛体验:华东地区多中心横断面研究。
目的:本研究的主要目的是评估慢性伤口患者伤口相关疼痛(WRP)的发生率,并评估止痛措施的使用情况:设计:横断面研究:2020年7月10日至8月25日,我们在中国东部江苏省13个城市中7个城市的12家医院的门诊中招募了慢性伤口患者。样本包括 451 名受访者,平均年龄为 54.85 岁(SD 19.16);56.1%(253/451)的患者为男性:采用研究人员设计的调查问卷收集患者的疼痛相关信息。问卷由四部分组成:(1) 基本人口统计学和临床信息(患者和伤口特征);(2) 伤口基线疼痛;(3) 与伤口相关的手术疼痛和止痛方法;(4) WRP 对患者的影响。疼痛采用数字评分量表(NRS)进行评估,评分范围从 0(无疼痛)到 10(最严重疼痛)。疼痛的严重程度根据 NRS 评分分为轻度(1-3 分)、中度(4-6 分)和重度(7-10 分)。调查于 2020 年 7 月 10 日至 8 月 25 日进行。参与者接受了 NRS 的使用指导,然后在更换敷料后独立完成问卷:最常见的 3 种慢性伤口是创伤性溃疡、手术伤口和腿部静脉溃疡。最常见的 3 个部位是下肢、足部和胸部/腹部。在所有患者中,分别有 62.5%(282/451)和 93.8%(423/451)的患者经历过伤口基线疼痛和伤口相关手术疼痛。伤口基线疼痛的平均值为 3.76(标准差为 1.60),表示中度疼痛。在伤口处理过程中,疼痛评分最高的是 6.45 分(标准差 2.75 分),表示剧烈疼痛;最剧烈的疼痛评分与清创有关。使用药物缓解伤口疼痛的比例较低,而使用非药物镇痛的比例相对较高。由于使用了 WRP,慢性伤口患者害怕更换敷料,不敢移动,睡眠质量也有所下降:结论:伤口基线疼痛和伤口相关程序疼痛在慢性伤口患者中非常常见。今后,应根据疼痛的严重程度,结合药物镇痛和非药物镇痛,制定有针对性的干预方案。
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
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
34.60%
发文量
186
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: ​​The Journal of Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nursing (JWOCN), the official journal of the Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nurses Society™ (WOCN®), is the premier publication for wound, ostomy and continence practice and research. The Journal’s mission is to publish current best evidence and original research to guide the delivery of expert health care. The WOCN Society is a professional nursing society which supports its members by promoting educational, clinical and research opportunities to advance the practice and guide the delivery of expert health care to individuals with wounds, ostomies and continence care needs.
×
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