• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

老年人疼痛强度评估:利用实验性疼痛比较选定疼痛量表与年轻人相比的心理测量特性和可用性。

Pain intensity assessment in older adults: use of experimental pain to compare psychometric properties and usability of selected pain scales with younger adults.

作者信息

Herr Keela A, Spratt Kevin, Mobily Paula R, Richardson Giovanna

机构信息

College of Nursing, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA.

出版信息

Clin J Pain. 2004 Jul-Aug;20(4):207-19. doi: 10.1097/00002508-200407000-00002.

DOI:10.1097/00002508-200407000-00002
PMID:15218405
Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To determine: (1) the psychometric properties and utility of 5 types of commonly used pain rating scales when used with younger and older adults, (2) factors related to failure to successfully use a pain rating scale, (3) pain rating scale preference, and (4) factors impacting scale preference.

METHODS

A quasi-experimental design was used to gather data from a sample of 86 younger (age 25-55) and 89 older (age 65-94) adult volunteer subjects. Responses of subjects to experimentally induced thermal stimuli were measured with the following pain intensity rating scales: vertical visual analog scale (VAS), 21-point Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), Verbal Descriptor Scale (VDS), 11-point Verbal Numeric Rating Scale (VNS), and Faces Pain Scale (FPS).

RESULTS

All 5 pain scales were effective in discriminating different levels of pain sensation; however the VDS was most sensitive and reliable. Failure rates for pain scale completion were minimal, except for the VAS. Although age did not impact failure to properly use this pain intensity rating scale, but rather those conditions more commonly associated with advanced age, including cognitive and psychomotor impairment did. The scale most preferred to represent pain intensity in both cohorts of subjects was the NRS, followed by the VDS. Scale preference was not related to cognitive status, educational level, age, race, or sex.

CONCLUSION

Although all 5 of the pain intensity rating scales were psychometrically sound when used with either age group, failures, internal consistency reliability, construct validity, scale sensitivity, and preference suggest that the VDS is the scale of choice for assessing pain intensity among older adults, including those with mild to moderate cognitive impairment.

摘要

目的

确定:(1)5种常用疼痛评定量表在年轻人和老年人中使用时的心理测量特性和效用;(2)与未能成功使用疼痛评定量表相关的因素;(3)疼痛评定量表偏好;以及(4)影响量表偏好的因素。

方法

采用准实验设计,从86名年轻(25 - 55岁)和89名年长(65 - 94岁)的成年志愿者样本中收集数据。使用以下疼痛强度评定量表测量受试者对实验性热刺激的反应:垂直视觉模拟量表(VAS)、21点数字评定量表(NRS)、言语描述量表(VDS)、11点言语数字评定量表(VNS)和面部疼痛量表(FPS)。

结果

所有5种疼痛量表都能有效区分不同程度的疼痛感觉;然而,VDS最为敏感和可靠。除VAS外,疼痛量表完成的失败率极低。虽然年龄并未影响未能正确使用该疼痛强度评定量表,但与高龄更常见相关的那些状况,包括认知和精神运动障碍却有影响。在两组受试者中,最常用于表示疼痛强度的量表是NRS,其次是VDS。量表偏好与认知状态、教育水平、年龄、种族或性别无关。

结论

虽然所有5种疼痛强度评定量表在与任何一个年龄组使用时在心理测量上都是合理的,但失败情况、内部一致性信度、结构效度、量表敏感性和偏好表明,VDS是评估老年人(包括轻度至中度认知障碍者)疼痛强度的首选量表。

相似文献

1
Pain intensity assessment in older adults: use of experimental pain to compare psychometric properties and usability of selected pain scales with younger adults.老年人疼痛强度评估:利用实验性疼痛比较选定疼痛量表与年轻人相比的心理测量特性和可用性。
Clin J Pain. 2004 Jul-Aug;20(4):207-19. doi: 10.1097/00002508-200407000-00002.
2
Evaluation of the Iowa pain thermometer and other selected pain intensity scales in younger and older adult cohorts using controlled clinical pain: a preliminary study.使用可控临床疼痛对年轻和老年成人队列中的爱荷华疼痛温度计及其他选定疼痛强度量表进行评估:一项初步研究。
Pain Med. 2007 Oct-Nov;8(7):585-600. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-4637.2007.00316.x.
3
Postoperative pain intensity assessment: a comparison of four scales in Chinese adults.术后疼痛强度评估:中国成年人四种量表的比较
Pain Med. 2007 Apr;8(3):223-34. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-4637.2007.00296.x.
4
Reliability and validity of the Faces Pain Scale with older adults.老年人面部疼痛量表的信度和效度
Int J Nurs Stud. 2006 May;43(4):447-56. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2006.01.001. Epub 2006 Feb 28.
5
Evaluation of the Revised Faces Pain Scale, Verbal Descriptor Scale, Numeric Rating Scale, and Iowa Pain Thermometer in older minority adults.对老年少数族裔成年人中修订的面部疼痛量表、言语描述量表、数字评定量表和爱荷华疼痛温度计的评估。
Pain Manag Nurs. 2006 Sep;7(3):117-25. doi: 10.1016/j.pmn.2006.06.005.
6
Psychometric evaluation of selected pain intensity scales for use with cognitively impaired and cognitively intact older adults.针对认知受损和认知未受损的老年人,对选定的疼痛强度量表进行心理测量评估。
Rehabil Nurs. 2005 Mar-Apr;30(2):55-61. doi: 10.1002/j.2048-7940.2005.tb00360.x.
7
Pain assessment in younger and older pain patients: psychometric properties and patient preference of five commonly used measures of pain intensity.年轻和老年疼痛患者的疼痛评估:五种常用疼痛强度测量方法的心理测量特性及患者偏好
Pain Med. 2007 Oct-Nov;8(7):601-10. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-4637.2007.00311.x.
8
Evaluation of Pain Intensity Assessment Tools Among Elderly Patients With Cancer in Taiwan.台湾老年癌症患者疼痛强度评估工具的评估
Cancer Nurs. 2017 Jul/Aug;40(4):269-275. doi: 10.1097/NCC.0000000000000410.
9
The measurement of postoperative pain: a comparison of intensity scales in younger and older surgical patients.术后疼痛的测量:年轻与老年手术患者疼痛强度量表的比较
Pain. 2005 Oct;117(3):412-420. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2005.07.004.
10
Comparison of pain scale preferences and pain intensity according to pain scales among Turkish Patients: a descriptive study.土耳其患者对疼痛量表的偏好及基于疼痛量表的疼痛强度比较:一项描述性研究。
Pain Manag Nurs. 2014 Mar;15(1):156-64. doi: 10.1016/j.pmn.2012.08.005. Epub 2012 Sep 24.

引用本文的文献

1
Effect of telemedicine-supported structured exercise program in patients with chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial.远程医疗支持的结构化运动计划对慢性腰痛患者的影响:一项随机对照试验。
PLoS One. 2025 Jun 25;20(6):e0326218. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0326218. eCollection 2025.
2
Effect of Telemedicine-Supported Structured Exercise Program in Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain: Study Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial.远程医疗支持的结构化运动计划对慢性腰痛患者的影响:一项随机对照试验的研究方案
J Pain Res. 2025 Jun 7;18:2809-2822. doi: 10.2147/JPR.S518072. eCollection 2025.
3
Clinical Efficacy of Multimodal Exercise Telerehabilitation Based on AI for Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain: Randomized Controlled Trial.
基于人工智能的多模式运动远程康复治疗慢性非特异性下腰痛的临床疗效:随机对照试验
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2025 May 22;13:e56176. doi: 10.2196/56176.
4
Effects of Integrating Pain Coping Strategies into Occupational Therapy After Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Parallel Mixed-Method Study.全膝关节置换术后将疼痛应对策略融入职业治疗的效果:一项平行混合方法研究。
Healthcare (Basel). 2025 Mar 13;13(6):627. doi: 10.3390/healthcare13060627.
5
The Coexistence of Hypertension and Arthritis Was Not Associated with Pain Severity in Community-Dwelling Older Adults in the United States.在美国社区居住的老年人中,高血压与关节炎并存与疼痛严重程度无关。
Healthcare (Basel). 2025 Mar 6;13(5):570. doi: 10.3390/healthcare13050570.
6
Clinical effectiveness of a standardized community-based supervised post-acute rehabilitation model after total knee arthropathy: A pilot study.全膝关节置换术后基于社区的标准化监督下急性后期康复模式的临床疗效:一项试点研究。
J Int Soc Phys Rehabil Med. 2024 Nov 18;7(4):129-135. doi: 10.1097/ph9.0000000000000047. eCollection 2024 Dec.
7
A Longitudinal Decline in Walking Speed Is Linked with Coexisting Hypertension and Arthritis in Community-Dwelling Older Adults.行走速度的纵向下降与社区居住的老年人并存的高血压和关节炎有关。
J Clin Med. 2024 Sep 15;13(18):5478. doi: 10.3390/jcm13185478.
8
Transforming Veteran Rehabilitation Care: Learnings from a Remote Digital Approach for Musculoskeletal Pain.变革退伍军人康复护理:从远程数字方法治疗肌肉骨骼疼痛中获得的经验教训。
Healthcare (Basel). 2024 Jul 31;12(15):1518. doi: 10.3390/healthcare12151518.
9
Measuring pain intensity in older patients: a comparison of five scales.测量老年患者的疼痛强度:五种量表的比较。
BMC Geriatr. 2024 Jun 25;24(1):556. doi: 10.1186/s12877-024-05127-6.
10
An enhancement of the Genium™ microprocessor-controlled knee improves safety and different aspects of the perceived prosthetic experience for unilateral and bilateral users.Genium™ 微处理器控制膝关节的改进提升了安全性,并改善了单侧和双侧使用者在假体体验方面的不同维度。
Front Rehabil Sci. 2024 May 2;5:1342370. doi: 10.3389/fresc.2024.1342370. eCollection 2024.