Participants were asked to estimate their current pain prevalence

Participants were asked to estimate their current pain prevalence and severity (an 11-point numerical scale) and also to estimate what these would be in the absence of any treatment. The questionnaire was piloted before being distributed. Non-respondents were sent a reminder

and replacement questionnaire. Acceptability and validity of the pain management questions were assessed by interviewing a random sample of 20 participants who had provided contact details. The interview included a check on current medications (based on a brown bag review). The item agreement between answers to the questionnaire, and the answers to the selleckchem same questions at the interview, was assessed using a sensitivity analysis, and the Prevalence And Bias Adjusted Kappa (PABAK). Differences in perceived pain prevalence and severity in the presence and absence of pain management were assessed for significance (95% confidence interval; Wilcoxon signed rank test) The study was approved by the North of Scotland Research Ethics Committee. One thousand six hundred four (36.3%)

patients returned a completed questionnaire. The agreement between responses to questions in the questionnaire was ‘almost perfect’ as demonstrated by MAPK inhibitor a PABAK of 0.95. Taking the interview data as the gold standard, the questionnaire had a sensitivity of 91.9% and a specificity of 97.9%. Participants reported that there were no difficulties in completing the pain management questions. Current pain was reported by 50.5% (95%CI = 48.0, 52.9) PTK6 of respondents; when the effect of current pain management was taken into account, this increased to 56.2% (95%CI = 53.7, 58.7). This difference was statistically significant (difference = 5.7%; 95%CI = 2.2, 9.2). Likewise, when pain management was taken into account, perceived pain severity was significantly increased (p < 0.001) from a median of 3 (IQR = 2, 6) to a median of 6 (IQR = 4, 8). Incorporating pain management

questions into pain surveys is feasible. It results in increased estimates of pain prevalence and severity, because respondents report their pain without the benefit of treatment . This is the first study that has quantified the under-reporting of pain when pain management is not taken into account. Future studies of pain should collect and consider pain management information when assessing the burden of pain. 1. Bruhn H et al., 2013. Pharmacist-led management of chronic pain in primary care: results from a randomised controlled exploratory trial. BMJ Open, vol. 3, no. 4. A. N. Rasheda,b, C. Whittleseac, B. Forbesa, S. Tomlina,b aKing’s College London, King’s Health Partners, London, UK, bEvelina London Children’s Hospital, Guy’s & St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK, cDurham University, London, UK No standard guidance for intravenous nurse/patient-controlled analgesia preparation in current practice.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>