11
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Challenges in pain assessment and management among individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Pain is common for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities, and we need to accelerate the use of evidence-based approaches to assess and manage pain.

          Abstract

          Introduction:

          Intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) include conditions associated with physical, learning, language, behavioural, and/or intellectual impairment. Pain is a common and debilitating secondary condition compromising functional abilities and quality of life.

          Objectives:

          This article addresses scientific and clinical challenges in pain assessment and management in individuals with severe IDD.

          Methods:

          This Clinical Update aligns with the 2019 IASP Global Year Against Pain in the Vulnerable and selectively reviews recurring issues as well as the best available evidence and practice.

          Results:

          The past decade of pain research has involved the development of standardized assessment tools appropriate for individuals with severe IDD; however, there is little empirical evidence that pain is being better assessed or managed clinically. There is limited evidence available to inform effective pain management practices; therefore, treatment approaches are largely empiric and highly variable. This is problematic because individuals with IDD are at risk of developing drug-related side effects, and treatment approaches effective for other populations may exacerbate pain in IDD populations. Scientifically, we are especially challenged by biases in self-reported and proxy-reported pain scores, identifying valid outcome measures for treatment trials, being able to adequately power studies due to small sample sizes, and our inability to easily explore the underlying pain mechanisms due to compromised ability to self-report.

          Conclusion:

          Despite the critical challenges, new developments in research and knowledge translation activities in pain and IDD continue to emerge, and there are ongoing international collaborations.

          Related collections

          Most cited references54

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          A new analogue scale for assessing children's pain: an initial validation study.

          A new instrument was designed to provide a practical clinical measure for assessing children's pain intensity and pain affect. The pocket size measure includes a Coloured Analogue Scale (CAS) to assess intensity and a facial affective scale to assess the aversive component of pain. Both scales have numerical ratings on the back, so that the person administering it can quickly note the numbers that represent a child's pain. This study was conducted to determine the validity of the new instrument by evaluating the psychophysical properties of the intensity scale and by evaluating the discriminant validity of the intensity and affective scales. Since visual analogue scales (VAS) are valid and reliable measures for assessing children's pain, children's ability to use the new analog scale was compared with their performance on a VAS. Children's ability to rate pain affect using an affective scale, in which the 9 faces on a Facial Affective Scale (FAS) are presented in an ordered sequence from least to most distressed, was compared to their performance on the original FAS, in which the same faces were presented in a random order. Using a parallel groups design, 104 children (5-16 years; 60 female, 44 male; 51 healthy and 53 with recurrent headaches) were randomized into two groups: CAS or VAS. Children used the assigned scale to complete a calibration task, in which they rated the sizes of 7 circles varying in area (491, 804, 1385, 2923, 3848, 5675 and 7854 mm2). The psychophysical function relating perceived circle size to actual physical size was determined for the CAS and VAS. Children's CAS and VAS responses on the calibration task yielded similar mathematical relationships: psi cas = 0.035I0.87, psi vas = 0.027I0.89, where psi = perceived magnitude and I = stimulus intensity. The R2 values were 0.921 and 0.922 for the CAS and VAS groups, respectively. Analyses of covariance revealed no significant differences in the characteristics of these relationships, i.e., R2, slope, or y intercept, by scale type. Children used the same scale to complete the Children's Pain Inventory (CPI), in which they rated the intensity and affect of 16 painful events (varying in nature and extent of tissue damage). Children's CAS and VAS responses on the CPI were similar. Analyses of covariance indicated that there were no differences in either intensity or affective ratings by scale type. However, the mean number of painful events experienced by children increased significantly with age (P = 0.0001). Intensity ratings decreased significantly with age (P = 0.002), but affective ratings did not vary with age. The new instrument has equivalent psychometric properties to a 165 mm VAS. However, the CAS was rated as easier to administer and score than the VAS, so it may be more practical for routine clinical use. Since the CAS has fulfilled the first two criteria for a pain measure (psychophysical properties and discriminant validity), it is ethical to proceed with the formal definitive test for construct validity, in which children from various clinical populations use the CAS scale to assess their own pain.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The revised FLACC observational pain tool: improved reliability and validity for pain assessment in children with cognitive impairment.

            Difficulty with pain assessment in individuals who cannot self-report their pain poses a significant barrier to effective pain management. However, available assessment tools lack consistent reliability as pain measures in children with cognitive impairment (CI). This study evaluated the validity and reliability of the revised and individualized Face Legs Activity Cry and Consolability (FLACC) behavioral pain assessment tool in children with CI. Children with CI scheduled for elective surgery were studied. The FLACC was revised to include specific descriptors and parent-identified, unique behaviors for individual children. The child's ability to self-report pain was evaluated. Postoperatively, two nurses scored pain using the revised FLACC scale before and after analgesic administration, and, children self-reported a pain score, if able. Observations were videotaped and later viewed by experienced nurses blinded to analgesic administration. Eighty observations were recorded in 52 children aged 4-19 years. Twenty-one parents added individualized pain behaviors to the revised FLACC. Interrater reliability was supported by excellent intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC, ranging from 0.76 to 0.90) and adequate kappa statistics (0.44-0.57). Criterion validity was supported by the correlations between FLACC, parent, and child scores (rho = 0.65-0.87; P < 0.001). Construct validity was demonstrated by the decrease in FLACC scores following analgesic administration (6.1 +/- 2.6 vs 1.9 +/- 2.7; P < 0.001). Findings support the reliability and validity of the FLACC as a measure of pain in children with CI.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A theoretical framework for understanding self-report and observational measures of pain: a communications model.

              Self-report and observational measures of pain are examined from the perspective of a model of human communication. This model examines the experience of pain as affected by intrapersonal and contextual factors, the process whereby it is encoded into expressive behaviour, and the process of decoding by observers prior to their engaging in action. Self-report measures primarily capture expressive pain behaviour that is under the control of higher mental processes, whereas observational measures capture behaviour that is less subject to voluntary control and more automatic. Automatic expressive behaviours are subject to less purposeful distortion than are behaviours dependent upon higher mental processes. Consequently, observational measures can be used and have clinical utility as indices of pain when self-report is not available, for example, in infants, young children, people with intellectual disabilities or brain damage, and seniors with dementia. These measures are also useful when the credibility of self-report is questioned and even when credible self-report is available. However, automatic behaviours may be more difficult for observers to decode. The model outlined herein takes into account the role of various human developmental stages in pain experience and expression and in understanding the utility of self-report and observational measures. We conclude that both observational and self-report measures are essential in the assessment of pain because of the unique information that each type contributes.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Pain Rep
                Pain Rep
                PAIREP
                Painreports
                Pain Reports
                Wolters Kluwer (Philadelphia, PA )
                2471-2531
                Jul-Aug 2020
                16 June 2020
                : 5
                : 4
                : e821
                Affiliations
                [a ]Gillette Children's Specialty Healthcare, Saint Paul, MN, USA
                [b ]Department of Educational Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA
                [c ]Department of Research, Telemark Hospital Trust, Skien, Norway
                [d ]Department of Physical Therapy, School of Health Professions, Sackler Faculty of Medicine & Sagol School of Neuroscience, Tel-Aviv University, Israel
                [e ]Department of Psychology, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada
                [f ]School of Psychology and Centre for Pain Research, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding author. Address: Gillette Children's Specialty Healthcare, 200 University Ave E., Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101. Tel.: 651-578-5205; fax: 651-229-1767. E-mail address: cbarney@ 123456gillettechildrens.com (C.C. Barney).
                Article
                PAINREPORTS-D-19-0135 00001
                10.1097/PR9.0000000000000822
                7302581
                32656458
                1373272e-0336-4bb4-93ed-55f9db1a4af3
                Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of The International Association for the Study of Pain.

                This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CCBY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 30 October 2019
                : 22 April 2020
                Categories
                14
                PCU
                Clinical Updates
                Custom metadata
                TRUE

                pain,discomfort,intellectual and developmental disabilities,quantitative sensory testing,cerebral palsy,cognitive impairment

                Comments

                Comment on this article