Department of Health Professions, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University.
Grace Centre for Newborn Intensive Care, Children's Hospital at Westmead.
Clin J Pain. 2021 Jun 1;37(6):397-403. doi: 10.1097/AJP.0000000000000931.
The objective of the study was to explore and then validate the factor structure of the Pain Assessment Tool (PAT).
A retrospective medical record review was performed of all infants who were admitted to a neonatal intensive care unit between 2008 and 2018 and had 1 PAT assessment (n=2111). Scores on items of the PAT were collected. Infants were randomized to either the principal component analysis (n=1100) to explore the factor structure or confirmatory factor analysis (n=1011).
Infants in the 2 samples were demographically comparable. A 2-factor model, consisting of factors Behavioral and Physiological Pain Measures, was extracted, explaining 39.8% of the total variance. There was a low interfactor correlation (r=0.12), and both Behavioral (r=0.59) and Physiological Pain (r=0.37) Measures factor scores were correlated with nurses' perception of pain scores. When the frequencies in the gestational age at birth categories were compared between upper and lower quartile score infants, there was more with pain at preterm than at term (χ2(3)=44.9, P<0.001) for the Physiological Pain Measures factor, whereas Behavioral Pain Measures frequency was higher at term than at preterm (χ2(3)=8.1, P<0.043). A similar pattern was observed for postmenstrual age at assessment categories: Behavioral Pain Measures (χ2(3)=41.8, P<0.001) Physiological Pain Measures (χ2(3)=46.1, P<0.001). The 2-factor correlated model performed better at explaining the observed variances: (χ2(13)=41.6, P<0.001) compared with rival models.
The PAT assesses both Behavioral Pain and Physiological Pain Measures, and these dimensions need to be considered separately when assessing pain in infants in the neonatal intensive care unit. Behavioral item scores may be insufficient for detecting pain in premature infants if used alone.
本研究旨在探索并验证疼痛评估工具(PAT)的因子结构。
对 2008 年至 2018 年间入住新生儿重症监护病房并接受 1 次 PAT 评估的所有婴儿(n=2111)进行回顾性病历审查。收集 PAT 各项得分。将婴儿随机分为主成分分析组(n=1100),以探索因子结构或验证性因子分析组(n=1011)。
两组婴儿在人口统计学方面具有可比性。提取出由行为和生理疼痛测量两个因子组成的 2 因子模型,解释了总方差的 39.8%。因子间相关性较低(r=0.12),行为(r=0.59)和生理疼痛(r=0.37)测量因子得分与护士对疼痛的感知评分相关。比较出生时胎龄在上下四分位数得分婴儿的胎龄类别频率时,生理疼痛测量因子中早产儿疼痛发生率高于足月儿(χ2(3)=44.9,P<0.001),而行为疼痛测量因子中足月儿疼痛发生率高于早产儿(χ2(3)=8.1,P<0.043)。评估时的月经龄类别也观察到类似的模式:行为疼痛测量(χ2(3)=41.8,P<0.001)生理疼痛测量(χ2(3)=46.1,P<0.001)。与竞争模型相比,2 因子相关模型在解释观察到的方差方面表现更好:(χ2(13)=41.6,P<0.001)。
PAT 评估行为疼痛和生理疼痛测量,在新生儿重症监护病房评估婴儿疼痛时,需要分别考虑这两个维度。如果单独使用行为项目评分,可能不足以检测早产儿的疼痛。