Delphi study to develop a core outcome set for inpatient pain assessment after cesarean delivery.

IF 3.7 3区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
S Ciechanowicz, B Carvalho, J Berger, P Duch, P Flood, R Ffrench-O'Carroll, H Sviggum, S Hakimi, D Jethava, M Mieszkowski, A Merriam, S Osmundson, U Ituk, J Wagner Kovacec, P Sultan
{"title":"Delphi study to develop a core outcome set for inpatient pain assessment after cesarean delivery.","authors":"S Ciechanowicz, B Carvalho, J Berger, P Duch, P Flood, R Ffrench-O'Carroll, H Sviggum, S Hakimi, D Jethava, M Mieszkowski, A Merriam, S Osmundson, U Ituk, J Wagner Kovacec, P Sultan","doi":"10.1016/j.accpm.2025.101556","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Studies of cesarean delivery pain report different outcomes, restricting data pooling. The study aimed to develop a core outcome set for inpatient postoperative pain assessment after cesarean delivery to use for research and clinical practice, using the Delphi consensus methodology.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A scoping review identified 37 initial outcomes, with 2 additional outcomes developed from a focus group. These were rated in a two-round Delphi survey completed by the focus group consisting of authors of studies from the scoping review (n = 9), supplemented with other experts (n = 5) and patients with recent lived experience (n = 7). Scores were on a 1-5 Likert scale, 1-2 being 'critical for inclusion'; 3 being 'important but not critical', and 4-5 of 'limited importance/invalid'. Outcomes were included if recommended by ≥70% of stakeholders after voting. A third-round virtual meeting determined domains, and several further rounds of online surveys, the specific measures.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Round one included 14 experts and 7 patients. Round two included 12 experts and 4 patients (76% response). The virtual meeting was attended by 11 experts and 3 patients (67%), and the 4 online surveys were completed by 67%, 52%, 67%, and 76% of the focus group. The final domains included pain intensity: at rest, movement-evoked, and pain relief; pain interference; total consumption of opioids; and maternal adverse effects. 12 measures for domains were agreed upon.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Getting out of a hospital bed was selected as the most relevant functional activity for movement-evoked pain after cesarean delivery. This core outcome set may be applied to future research and clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":48762,"journal":{"name":"Anaesthesia Critical Care & Pain Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"101556"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anaesthesia Critical Care & Pain Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accpm.2025.101556","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Studies of cesarean delivery pain report different outcomes, restricting data pooling. The study aimed to develop a core outcome set for inpatient postoperative pain assessment after cesarean delivery to use for research and clinical practice, using the Delphi consensus methodology.

Methods: A scoping review identified 37 initial outcomes, with 2 additional outcomes developed from a focus group. These were rated in a two-round Delphi survey completed by the focus group consisting of authors of studies from the scoping review (n = 9), supplemented with other experts (n = 5) and patients with recent lived experience (n = 7). Scores were on a 1-5 Likert scale, 1-2 being 'critical for inclusion'; 3 being 'important but not critical', and 4-5 of 'limited importance/invalid'. Outcomes were included if recommended by ≥70% of stakeholders after voting. A third-round virtual meeting determined domains, and several further rounds of online surveys, the specific measures.

Results: Round one included 14 experts and 7 patients. Round two included 12 experts and 4 patients (76% response). The virtual meeting was attended by 11 experts and 3 patients (67%), and the 4 online surveys were completed by 67%, 52%, 67%, and 76% of the focus group. The final domains included pain intensity: at rest, movement-evoked, and pain relief; pain interference; total consumption of opioids; and maternal adverse effects. 12 measures for domains were agreed upon.

Conclusions: Getting out of a hospital bed was selected as the most relevant functional activity for movement-evoked pain after cesarean delivery. This core outcome set may be applied to future research and clinical practice.

德尔菲研究为剖宫产后住院患者疼痛评估制定一个核心结局集。
背景:剖宫产疼痛的研究报告了不同的结果,限制了数据汇集。本研究旨在采用德尔菲共识方法,为剖宫产术后住院患者疼痛评估制定一套核心结果集,用于研究和临床实践。方法:范围评估确定了37个初始结果,另外2个结果来自焦点小组。在两轮德尔菲调查中对这些结果进行评分,该调查由焦点小组完成,该小组由范围综述研究的作者(n = 9)、其他专家(n = 5)和近期生活经验的患者(n = 7)组成。得分在1-5分的李克特量表上,1-2分是“关键的包容性”;3是“重要但不关键”,4-5是“有限重要/无效”。如果投票后有超过70%的利益相关者推荐,则纳入结果。第三轮虚拟会议确定了域名,并进一步进行了几轮在线调查,确定了具体措施。结果:第一轮专家14人,患者7人。第二轮包括12名专家和4名患者(76%应答)。参加虚拟会议的专家11人,患者3人(67%),完成4项在线调查的焦点组比例分别为67%、52%、67%、76%。最后一个领域包括疼痛强度:休息时、运动诱发时和疼痛缓解时;疼痛干扰;阿片类药物总消费量;以及母体的不良影响。就12项域名措施达成一致。结论:下床是剖宫产后运动诱发疼痛最相关的功能活动。这一核心结果集可以应用于未来的研究和临床实践。
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
6.70
自引率
5.50%
发文量
150
审稿时长
18 days
期刊介绍: Anaesthesia, Critical Care & Pain Medicine (formerly Annales Françaises d''Anesthésie et de Réanimation) publishes in English the highest quality original material, both scientific and clinical, on all aspects of anaesthesia, critical care & pain medicine.
×
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