Department of Psychology, University of Regina, SK, Canada.
Centre on Aging and Health, University of Regina, SK, Canada.
Eur J Pain. 2018 May;22(5):915-925. doi: 10.1002/ejp.1177. Epub 2018 Jan 23.
Fine-grained observational approaches to pain assessment (e.g. the Facial Action Coding System; FACS) are used to evaluate pain in individuals with and without dementia. These approaches are difficult to utilize in clinical settings as they require specialized training and equipment. Easy-to-use observational approaches (e.g. the Pain Assessment Checklist for Limited Ability to Communicate-II; PACSLAC-II) have been developed for clinical settings. Our goal was to compare a FACS-based fine-grained system to the PACSLAC-II in differentiating painful from non-painful states in older adults with and without dementia.
We video-recorded older long-term care residents with dementia and older adult outpatients without dementia, during a quiet baseline condition and while they took part in a physiotherapy examination designed to identify painful areas. Videos were coded using pain-related behaviours from the FACS and the PACSLAC-II.
Both tools differentiated between painful and non-painful states, but the PACSLAC-II accounted for more variance than the FACS-based approach. Participants with dementia scored higher on the PACSLAC-II than participants without dementia.
The results suggest that easy-to-use observational approaches for clinical settings are valid and that there may not be any clinically important advantages to using more resource-intensive coding approaches based on FACS. We acknowledge, as a limitation of our study, that we used as baseline a quiet condition that did not involve significant patient movement. In contrast, our pain condition involved systematic patient movement. Future research should be aimed at replicating our results using a baseline condition that involves non-painful movements.
Examining older adults with and without dementia, a brief observational clinical approach was found to be valid and accounted for more variance in differentiating pain-related and non-pain-related states than did a detailed time-consuming fine-grained approach.
精细的观察方法(例如面部动作编码系统;FACS)用于评估有和没有痴呆症的个体的疼痛。这些方法在临床环境中难以使用,因为它们需要专门的培训和设备。已经为临床环境开发了易于使用的观察方法(例如,有限沟通能力疼痛评估检查表-II;PACSLAC-II)。我们的目标是比较基于 FACS 的精细系统与 PACSLAC-II 在区分有和没有痴呆症的老年人的疼痛和非疼痛状态。
我们在安静的基线条件下和进行物理治疗检查期间记录了有痴呆症的老年长期护理居民和没有痴呆症的老年门诊患者的视频,该检查旨在识别疼痛区域。视频使用来自 FACS 和 PACSLAC-II 的疼痛相关行为进行编码。
两种工具都能区分疼痛和非疼痛状态,但 PACSLAC-II 比基于 FACS 的方法解释了更多的方差。有痴呆症的参与者在 PACSLAC-II 上的得分高于没有痴呆症的参与者。
结果表明,临床环境中易于使用的观察方法是有效的,并且使用基于 FACS 的更具资源密集型编码方法可能没有任何临床重要优势。我们承认,作为我们研究的限制,我们使用了不涉及患者明显运动的安静条件作为基线。相比之下,我们的疼痛条件涉及系统的患者运动。未来的研究应该旨在使用涉及非疼痛运动的基线条件复制我们的结果。
在检查有和没有痴呆症的老年人时,发现一种简短的观察临床方法是有效的,并且在区分与疼痛相关和与疼痛无关的状态方面比详细的耗时精细方法解释了更多的方差。