4.6 Article

Pain in European long-term care facilities: Cross-national study in Finland, Italy and the Netherlands

期刊

PAIN
卷 148, 期 1, 页码 70-74

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1016/j.pain.2009.10.008

关键词

Pain; Long-term care facilities; Aged; Cross-national comparisons; Minimum Data Set; Comprehensive geriatric assessment; InterRAI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There have been very few and limited cross-national comparisons concerning pain among residents of long-term care facilities in Europe. The aim of the present cross-sectional study has been to document the prevalence of pain, its frequency and severity as well as its correlates in three European countries: Finland (north), Italy (south) and the Netherlands (western central). Patients (aged 65 years or above) were assessed with the Minimum Data Set 2.0 (MDS). The final sample comprised 5761 patients from 64 facilities in Finland, 2295 patients from 8 facilities in the Netherlands and 1959 patients from 31 facilities in Italy. The prevalence of pain-defined as any type of pain-varied between 32% in Italy, 43% in the Netherlands and 57% in Finland. In nearly 50% of cases, pain was present daily; there were no significant differences in pain prevalence between patients with cancer diagnosis and those with non-cancer diagnosis. Regardless of the different prevalence estimates, pain was moderate-to-severe in over 50% of cases in all the countries. In multivariate logistic regression models, clinical correlates of pain were substantially similar across countries: pain was positively correlated with more severe physical disability (ADL impairment), clinical depression and a diagnosis of osteoporosis. Pain was negatively correlated with a diagnosis of dementia and more severe degrees of cognitive deterioration. We conclude that pain is frequently encountered in long-term care facilities in Europe and that, despite cultural and case-mix differences, pain speaks one language. (C) 2009 International Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Elsevier B. V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据