↓ Skip to main content

Validation of three pain scales among adult postoperative patients in Ghana

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Nursing, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
186 Mendeley
Title
Validation of three pain scales among adult postoperative patients in Ghana
Published in
BMC Nursing, August 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12912-015-0094-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lydia Aziato, Florence Dedey, Kissinger Marfo, James Avoka Asamani, Joe Nat A. Clegg-Lamptey

Abstract

Pain assessment is an important component of pain management and health professionals require valid tools to assess pain to guide their pain management decisions. The study sought to select, develop, and validate context-appropriate unidimensional pain scales for pain assessment among adult post-operative patients. A mixed methods design was adopted. The study was conducted at two hospitals in Accra, Ghana. The qualitative phase involved 17 patients and 25 nurses, and the quantitative phase involved 150 post-operative patients. Qualitative data was collected iteratively through individual interviews and focus groups. Two existing pain scales (0-10 Numeric Rating Scale [NRS] and Wong-Baker FACES [FPS] scales) and one new pain scale (Colour-Circle Pain Scale-[CCPS]) were validated. The psychometric properties of the three scales were assessed when patients had fully recovered from anesthesia. The CCPS had higher scale preference than NRS and FPS. Convergent validity was very good and significant (0.70-0.75). Inter-rater reliability was high (0.923-0.928) and all the scales were sensitive to change in the intensity or level of pain experienced before and after analgesia such as paracetamol and diclofenac suppositories, injectable pethidine, and oral tramadol had been administered. Using a valid tool for pain assessment gives the clinician an objective criterion for pain management. Due to the subjective nature of pain, consideration of socio-cultural factors for the particular context ensures that the appropriate tool is used.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 186 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 185 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 47 25%
Student > Bachelor 30 16%
Student > Postgraduate 13 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 7%
Other 26 14%
Unknown 44 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 61 33%
Medicine and Dentistry 56 30%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 2%
Social Sciences 3 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 1%
Other 12 6%
Unknown 48 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 October 2015.
All research outputs
#5,925,470
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from BMC Nursing
#160
of 797 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,689
of 265,897 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Nursing
#3
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 797 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 265,897 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.