Shega Joseph W, Rudy Thomas, Keefe Francis J, Perri Lisa Caitlin, Mengin Olga Telgarska, Weiner Debra K
Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology and Oncology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois 60611, USA.
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2008 Sep;56(9):1631-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2008.01831.x. Epub 2008 Jul 24.
To evaluate the validity of traditional pain behaviors (guarding, bracing, rubbing, grimacing, and sighing) in persons with and without cognitive impairment and chronic low back pain (CLBP).
Prospective observational study.
Outpatient clinics.
Thirty-seven cognitively intact and 40 cognitively impaired participants with and without CLBP.
Frequency of traditional pain behaviors.
Forty-six of the participants were pain free, and 31 had CLBP. The internal consistency reliability coefficient of the five pain behaviors was 0.32, suggesting that a unidimensional scale did not exist. Multivariate analysis of variance analysis according to the independent variables pain status (pain free vs CLBP) and cognitive status (intact vs impaired) with the dependent variable frequency of pain behaviors found significant differences according to pain status (F[5,61]=3.06, P=.02) and cognitive status (F[5,61]=5.41, P<.001) but without evidence of an interaction (F[5,61]=1.14, P=.35). Participants with CLBP exhibited significantly higher levels of grimacing (P<.001) and guarding (P=.02) than pain-free participants. Intact subjects exhibited fewer guarding (P=.02) and rubbing behaviors (P<.001) but a higher number of bracing behaviors (P=.03) than cognitively impaired participants.
These results support the utility of facial grimacing in assessing pain in patients with mild to moderate cognitive impairment and call into question the validity of guarding and rubbing in assessing pain in persons with mild to moderate cognitive impairment.
评估传统疼痛行为(如保护性动作、支撑动作、揉擦动作、 grimacing表情和叹息)在有和没有认知障碍以及慢性下腰痛(CLBP)的人群中的有效性。
前瞻性观察研究。
门诊诊所。
37名认知功能正常以及40名有或没有CLBP的认知障碍参与者。
传统疼痛行为的频率。
46名参与者无疼痛,31名有CLBP。五种疼痛行为的内部一致性信度系数为0.32,表明不存在单一维度量表。以疼痛行为频率作为因变量,根据自变量疼痛状态(无疼痛与CLBP)和认知状态(正常与受损)进行多变量方差分析,发现根据疼痛状态(F[5,61]=3.06,P=.02)和认知状态(F[5,61]=5.41,P<.001)存在显著差异,但没有交互作用的证据(F[5,61]=1.14,P=.35)。与无疼痛的参与者相比,有CLBP的参与者表现出显著更高水平的 grimacing表情(P<.001)和保护性动作(P=.02)。与认知障碍参与者相比,认知功能正常的受试者表现出更少的保护性动作(P=.02)和揉擦动作(P<.001),但有更多的支撑动作(P=.03)。
这些结果支持 grimacing表情在评估轻度至中度认知障碍患者疼痛中的作用,同时对保护性动作和揉擦动作在评估轻度至中度认知障碍患者疼痛中的有效性提出质疑。