↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Pain Assessment in Impaired Cognition (PAIC): content validity of the Dutch version of a new and universal tool to measure pain in dementia

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Interventions in Aging, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
105 Mendeley
Title
Pain Assessment in Impaired Cognition (PAIC): content validity of the Dutch version of a new and universal tool to measure pain in dementia
Published in
Clinical Interventions in Aging, December 2017
DOI 10.2147/cia.s144651
Pubmed ID
Authors

Annelore H van Dalen-Kok, Wilco P Achterberg, Wieke E Rijkmans, Sara A Tukker-van Vuuren, Suzanne Delwel, Henrica CW de Vet, Frank Lobbezoo, Margot WM de Waal

Abstract

Detection and measurement of pain in persons with dementia by using observational pain measurement tools is essential. However, the evidence for the psychometric properties of existing observational tools remains limited. Therefore, a new meta-tool has been developed: Pain Assessment in Impaired Cognition (PAIC), as a collaborative EU action. The aim is to describe the translation procedure and content validity of the Dutch version of the PAIC. Translation of the PAIC into Dutch followed the forward-backward approach of the Guidelines for Establishing Cultural Equivalence of Instruments. A questionnaire survey was administered to clinical nursing home experts (20 physicians and 20 nurses) to determine whether the PAIC items are indicative of pain and whether items are specific for pain or for other disorders (anxiety disorder, delirium, dementia, or depression). To quantify content validity, mean scores per item were calculated. Eleven items were indicative of pain, for example, "frowning," "freezing," and "groaning." Fifteen items were considered to be pain-specific, for example, "frowning," "curling up," and "complaining." There were discrepancies between the notion of pain characteristics according to nurses and physicians, especially in the facial expressions domain. Within the body movement domain, PAIC items correspond well with the clinical experience of the physicians and nurses. However, items in the facial expressions and vocalizations domains need further study with respect to item reduction. Also, differences were revealed in the notion of pain characteristics between physicians and nurses, suggesting the need for more interdisciplinary education on pain in dementia.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 105 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 105 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 19%
Student > Bachelor 14 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 12%
Researcher 8 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 6%
Other 15 14%
Unknown 29 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 17%
Psychology 9 9%
Social Sciences 5 5%
Sports and Recreations 3 3%
Other 11 10%
Unknown 32 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 14 January 2018.
All research outputs
#6,850,695
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#631
of 1,968 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#123,732
of 444,941 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#18
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,968 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 444,941 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.