Conectar
To translate and validate the Nonverbal Pain Assessment Tool.
Timely assessment of the pain degree of nonverbal intensive care unit (ICU) patients can provide humanistic care. However, there is a lack of pain assessment tools that can meet the needs of patients who cannot use language in ICUs in China.
A cross-sectional survey.
We conducted forward–backward translation of the Nonverbal Pain Assessment Tool. A total of 300 critically ill patients in the intensive care unit who could not communicate verbally completed the Chinese version of the Nonverbal Pain Assessment Tool and the Critical Care Pain Observation Tool. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were performed to verify structural validity, and content validity and reliability analyses were also conducted.
The Nonverbal Pain Assessment Tool demonstrated high internal consistency (α = 0.901) and interrater reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.981), with good split-half reliability. Content validity was established through acceptable item-level content validity index and scale-level content validity index scores. Exploratory factor analysis showed a single factor explaining 71.79% of total variance, and confirmatory factor analysis confirmed good model fit. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient was 0.917 between the Nonverbal Pain Assessment Tool and the Critical Care Pain Observation Tool. The Chinese Nonverbal Pain Assessment Tool demonstrated significant differences in scores between different states of consciousness and illness severity, supporting its known-groups validity.
The Chinese version of the Nonverbal Pain Assessment Tool is a reliable and valid tool for nonverbal pain assessment in ICU patients in China.
The Chinese version of the Nonverbal Pain Assessment Tool can assess the pain of patients who cannot use language in ICU, which provides a new valuable assessment tool for Chinese clinicians and nurses in pain assessment and management.
Our study followed the STROBE Checklists.
Patients actively cooperated and participated in data collection during the implementation of the study.
(1) To describe existing tools to assess the burden of informal caregivers of people with cancer, (2) to describe how these tools have been validated and (3) to describe the areas of interest of existing assessment tool entries.
The caregiver burden of informal caregivers of people with cancer greatly affects their lives. There is a wide variety of relevant assessment tools available, but there are no studies to help researchers to select tools.
A search was conducted using the keywords ‘cancer’, ‘caregiver’, ‘burden’ and ‘scale’ in Medline (PubMed), CINAHL and EMBASE to include articles that developed or applied tools to assess the burden on informal caregivers of cancer patients. Once eligible tools were identified, we searched their ‘primary reference’ studies. If the original scale was assessed in a population other than informal caregivers of cancer patients, we again searched for psychometric measures in the population of caregivers of cancer patients.
This study retrieved 938 articles on developing or applying the informal caregiver burden instrument for cancer patients, including 42 scales. Internal consistency of the original scales ranged from 0.53 to 0.96. Nineteen scales initially developed to assess caregiver burden for patients with dementia, stroke and other disorders were later used for caregivers of cancer patients, eight of which have not yet been validated. Reclassifying all scale domains of concern revealed that scale assessments focused more on caregivers' physical health, emotional state and caregiving tasks.
This review identifies many scales for assessing informal caregiver burden in cancer patients and gives scales recommended. However, a portion still needs to be validated. The development of a new scale proposes to be based on a theoretical framework and to consider dimensions for assessing support resources.
What problem did the study address?: This paper collates assessment tools on the burden of informal carers of people with cancer. It also provides information on the applicable population, reliability and validity.
What were the main findings?: 41 scales could be considered for use, eight of which have not been validated. The scales focus more on assessing caregivers' physical health, emotional state and caregiving tasks, and less on the dimension of support resources.
Where and on whom will the research have an impact?: There are implications for informal carers of cancer patients in hospitals or in the community, as well as for relevant researchers.
Retrieved with reference to systematic evaluation.
No patient or public contribution.
FreshRSS