Premium
Translation and cultural adaptation of an objective pain assessment tool for F innish ICU patients
Author(s) -
PudasTähkä SannaMari,
Axelin Anna,
Aantaa Riku,
Lund Vesa,
Salanterä Sanna
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
scandinavian journal of caring sciences
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.678
H-Index - 66
eISSN - 1471-6712
pISSN - 0283-9318
DOI - 10.1111/scs.12103
Subject(s) - pain assessment , context (archaeology) , intensive care , knowledge translation , equivalence (formal languages) , medicine , intensive care unit , adaptation (eye) , psychology , pain management , physical therapy , intensive care medicine , computer science , knowledge management , philosophy , paleontology , linguistics , neuroscience , biology
Aim The purpose of this study was to culturally validate three pain measurement instruments [ B ehavioral P ain S cale ( BPS ), the C ritical‐ C are P ain O bservation T ool ( CPOT ) and the N onverbal A dult P ain A ssessment S cale ( NVPS )] for sedated intensive care patients and in doing so to prepare the tools for psychometric testing in the F innish intensive care environment. Background Most patients feel pain during their stay in an intensive care unit. Pain recognition and assessment is the first step towards effective pain management. The BPS , CPOT and NVPS are the most valid and reliable pain assessment instruments developed to objectively assess pain in sedated intensive care patients. Method The translation and cultural adaptation of the instruments were done according to the guidelines of the I nternational S ociety for P harmacoeconomics and O utcomes ( ISPOR ). The process included 10 phases aiming to produce semantically correct F innish versions of the pain assessment instruments. This translation process was chosen due to its rigorousness and systematic approach. Results The 10‐step translation and cultural validation process were successfully conducted, although it was complex and time‐consuming. The resulting F innish versions of the three pain assessment instruments showed good evidence of content and conceptual equivalence. Although further work is needed to test these instruments in the F innish intensive care context, the current F innish versions are potential instruments for clinicians to use. Conclusion Deciding when this high‐quality process is needed requires thorough consideration. However, it is worthwhile to use it when implementing new instruments at a national level. We need a valid, reliable and feasible instrument for pain assessment in sedated intensive care patients in F inland. The next step in our process is conducting psychometric testing of these three instruments to choose the tool with the best properties to be implemented in clinical practice.