Hastaların en kolay anladığı ağrı değerlendirme yöntemi hangisidir?
Amaç: Farklı ağrı değerlendirme yöntemlerinin (Faces Pain Rating Scale [FPRS], Verbal Rating Scale [VRS], Numeric Rating Scale [NRS], Visual Analog Scale [VAS 10], Visual Analog Scale [VAS 100], değiştirilmiş Me Gill Pain Questionnaire [MPQ]), ameliyat öncesi, erken ve geç ameliyat sonrası dönemde, hastalar tarafından anlaşılabilirliği araştırıldı. Yöntem: Yaşları 18-70 arasında, ağrısı olan ve genel anestezi altında ameliyat olacak, 200 olgu çalışma kapsamına alındı. Olgular öğrenim durumlarına göre dört gruba ayrıldı. Araştırmacı, olgulara ameliyat öncesi dönemde değerlendirme yöntemlerini tanıttı. Olgular ağrı şiddetlerini; ameliyat öncesi ziyarette, ameliyat sonrası ayılma odasında (erken dönem), ve serviste (geç dönem) olmak üzere üç aşamada işaretlediler. Bulgular: Ağrı ölçeklerinin anlaşılır lığında; hastaların cinsiyeti ve öğrenimleri bakımından istatistiksel fark bulundu (p
Which is the most effective method for pain indication in patients?
Background and aims: An investigation was carried out to determine which of the various methods for indicating pain would be best understood by patients in the period prior to surgery and in the early and late post-operative periods. Facial Pain Rating Scale (FPRS), Verbal Rating Scale (VRS), Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), Visual Analog Scale (VAS 10), Visual Analog Scale (VAS 100), and an adaptation of the Me Gill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ) were used. Materials and Method: Two hundred cases between the ages of 18 and 70 (46 ± SD 14) who had pain and would undergo surgery with general anaesthesis were taken within the scope of this study. The cases were divided into four groups according to their level of education: primary, middle, and high school and university. The methods were explained by the researchers to the patients in the period before surgery. The patients indicated the intensity of their pain at three different times: during the pre-oper-ation visit, in the recovery room (early period), on the ward (late period). Results: Regarding the intelligibility of pain measurements, statiscal differences were found in terms of the gender and education level of the cases (p<0.01, both). FPRS, marked by 116 (58%) of cases, was the most intelligible and VAS 10 and VAS 100, marked by 5 (2,5%) and 6 (3%) of cases, were the least intelligible methods. Discussion: FPRS, generally used with children, can be used just as effectively with adults. VAS was established as the least intelligible method and thus should be considered for further research. Pain indication methods must be standardized for better understanding and internalization.
1.Huskisson EC. Measurement of pain. Lancet 1974; 2: 1127-31.
2.Deloach LJ, Higgins MS, Çaplan AB. Stiff JL. The visual analog scale in the immediate postoperative period: intrasubject variabi lity and correlation with a numeric scale. Anesth Analg 1998; 86: 102-6.
3.Campbell WI, Patterson CC. Quantifying meaningful changes in pain. Anaesthesia 1998; 53: 121-5.
4.Clark P, Lavielle P, Martinez H. Learning from pain scales: patient perspective. J Rheumatol 2003; 30: 1584-8.
5.Kremer E, Atkinson JH, Ignelzi RJ. Measurement of pain: patient preference does not confound pain measurement. Pain 1981; 10: 241-8.
6.Taylor LJ, Herr K. Pain intensity assesment: A comparison of selected pain intersity scales for use in cognitively intact and cognitively impaired African American older adults. Pain Manag Nurs 2003; 4: 87-95.
7.Larroy C. Comparing visual-analog and numeric scales for assessing menstural pain. Behav Med 2002 ; 27: 179-81.
8.Morley S, Pallin V. Scaling the affective domain of pain: a study of the dimensionality of verbal describtors. Pain 1995; 62: 39-49.
9.Gagliese L, Katz J. Age differences in postoperative pain are scale dependent: a comparison of measures of pain intensty and quality in younger and older surgical patients. Pain 2003; 103: 11-20.
10.Ludington E, Dexter F. Statistical analysis of total labor pain using the visual analog scale and application to studies of analgesic effectiveness during childbirth. Anesth Analg 1998; 87: 723-7.