Validity and reliability of the Italian version of painad for postoperative pain assessment in geriatric patients with proximal femur fractures

IF 1.5 Q3 NURSING
Massimo Guasconi , Margherita Marchioni , Melania Miedico , Alessia Brusca , Giulia Guarnaccia , Marina Bolzoni , Pietro Maniscalco , Corrado Ciatti , Antonio Bonacaro , Andrea Contini , Fabrizio Quattrini
{"title":"Validity and reliability of the Italian version of painad for postoperative pain assessment in geriatric patients with proximal femur fractures","authors":"Massimo Guasconi ,&nbsp;Margherita Marchioni ,&nbsp;Melania Miedico ,&nbsp;Alessia Brusca ,&nbsp;Giulia Guarnaccia ,&nbsp;Marina Bolzoni ,&nbsp;Pietro Maniscalco ,&nbsp;Corrado Ciatti ,&nbsp;Antonio Bonacaro ,&nbsp;Andrea Contini ,&nbsp;Fabrizio Quattrini","doi":"10.1016/j.ijotn.2025.101181","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Pain assessment is essential in nursing care. The Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) is widely used but may not fully capture pain's multidimensional nature. The Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia (PAINAD) scale is reliable for assessing pain in cognitively impaired patients. This study aims to evaluate the validity of the Italian version of PAINAD (PAINAD-IT) for postoperative pain assessment in geriatric patients with femur fractures.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>This study employs the PAINAD-IT, which was translated and validated for the Italian context by Costardi et al. (2007). Face and content validity (I-CVI and S-CVI) for non-cognitively impaired patients were evaluated by experts. Pain assessments were conducted at rest (T0) and during movement (T1). Convergent validity was tested using Spearman correlation, discriminant validity with the Wilcoxon test, and inter-rater reliability with Cohen's kappa. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>I-CVIs were ≥0.90 and S-CVI was 0.96. 75 patients were included. Cohen's kappa was 0.918 at T0 and 0.881 at T1. Both PAINAD and NRS detected a significant increase in pain from T0 to T1 (Wilcoxon p &lt; 0.001). Sensitivity was 26 % and specificity was 99 % for PAINAD-IT scores ≥3.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>PAINAD showed strong reliability and correlation with NRS, effectively distinguishing between rest and pain stages, these results suggest that PAINAD-IT may be a useful tool for pain assessment in geriatric patients operated for femur fracture. PAINAD-IT scores ≥3 may suggest severe pain. Further multi-centre studies with larger sample sizes are needed to fully validate PAINAD-IT for postoperative pain assessment in geriatric patients with.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":45099,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Orthopaedic and Trauma Nursing","volume":"57 ","pages":"Article 101181"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Orthopaedic and Trauma Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1878124125000255","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Pain assessment is essential in nursing care. The Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) is widely used but may not fully capture pain's multidimensional nature. The Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia (PAINAD) scale is reliable for assessing pain in cognitively impaired patients. This study aims to evaluate the validity of the Italian version of PAINAD (PAINAD-IT) for postoperative pain assessment in geriatric patients with femur fractures.

Methods

This study employs the PAINAD-IT, which was translated and validated for the Italian context by Costardi et al. (2007). Face and content validity (I-CVI and S-CVI) for non-cognitively impaired patients were evaluated by experts. Pain assessments were conducted at rest (T0) and during movement (T1). Convergent validity was tested using Spearman correlation, discriminant validity with the Wilcoxon test, and inter-rater reliability with Cohen's kappa. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated.

Results

I-CVIs were ≥0.90 and S-CVI was 0.96. 75 patients were included. Cohen's kappa was 0.918 at T0 and 0.881 at T1. Both PAINAD and NRS detected a significant increase in pain from T0 to T1 (Wilcoxon p < 0.001). Sensitivity was 26 % and specificity was 99 % for PAINAD-IT scores ≥3.

Conclusion

PAINAD showed strong reliability and correlation with NRS, effectively distinguishing between rest and pain stages, these results suggest that PAINAD-IT may be a useful tool for pain assessment in geriatric patients operated for femur fracture. PAINAD-IT scores ≥3 may suggest severe pain. Further multi-centre studies with larger sample sizes are needed to fully validate PAINAD-IT for postoperative pain assessment in geriatric patients with.
意大利版painad对老年股骨近端骨折患者术后疼痛评估的有效性和可靠性
背景疼痛评估在护理工作中至关重要。数字评定量表(NRS)被广泛使用,但可能无法完全反映疼痛的多维性。晚期痴呆症患者疼痛评估(PAINAD)量表在评估认知障碍患者的疼痛方面是可靠的。本研究旨在评估意大利语版 PAINAD(PAINAD-IT)在老年股骨骨折患者术后疼痛评估中的有效性。专家对非认知障碍患者的面效度和内容效度(I-CVI 和 S-CVI)进行了评估。疼痛评估在静息(T0)和运动(T1)时进行。使用斯皮尔曼相关性检验了收敛有效性,使用 Wilcoxon 检验了判别有效性,使用 Cohen's kappa 检验了评分者之间的可靠性。结果 I-CVI 均≥0.90,S-CVI 为 0.96。共纳入 75 名患者。T0时的Cohen's kappa为0.918,T1时为0.881。PAINAD 和 NRS 均能检测到从 T0 到 T1 疼痛的显著增加(Wilcoxon p < 0.001)。PAINAD-IT 评分≥3 分的灵敏度为 26%,特异度为 99%。结论 PAINAD 显示出很强的可靠性和与 NRS 的相关性,能有效区分休息和疼痛阶段,这些结果表明 PAINAD-IT 可能是老年股骨骨折手术患者疼痛评估的有用工具。PAINAD-IT 评分≥3分可能提示严重疼痛。要全面验证 PAINAD-IT 在老年股骨骨折患者术后疼痛评估中的有效性,还需要进一步开展样本量更大的多中心研究。
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
2.60
自引率
14.30%
发文量
34
×
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