Dysmenorrhea, or menstrual pain, is a subjective experience, and can only be assessed by patient-reported outcomes. These instruments should be reliable, valid and responsive.
To identify and critically appraise the available evidence for the measurement properties of specific patient-reported outcome measures used for dysmenorrhea.
The PRISMA statement was used to report this systematic review. Databases searched were PubMed, SCOPUS, CINAHL, Web of Science, ScienceDirect and Google Scholar (April 2021; updated on February 2023). Original studies with primary data collection, with no restriction on language and publication date that reported psychometric properties of one or more dysmenorrhea-related patient-reported outcome measure. The literature searches, selection of studies, data extraction and assessment of the risk of bias were performed independently by two reviewers and followed the COSMIN guidelines.
Thirty studies were analysed in this review, and 19 patient-reported outcome measures were evaluated. The instruments varied in relation to the measured construct and measurement properties (validity, reliability and responsiveness). The methodological quality of the studies and the quality of evidence of the patient-reported outcome measures were variable. Among the 13 studies that reported the development of patient-reported outcome measures, most had inadequate methodological quality, and the overall rating was insufficient or inconsistent.
The Dysmenorrhea Symptom Interference (DSI) scale was the only identified patient-reported outcome measure that has the potential to be recommended because of its sufficient rating combined with moderate quality of evidence for content validity. Future studies should further evaluate the measurement properties of the existing patient-reported outcome measures, or develop new patient-reported outcome measures following the COSMIN methodology.
Not applicable as this is a systematic review.
PROSPERO protocol: CRD42021244410. Registration on April 22, 2021.
To evaluate registered nurses' beliefs and related factors regarding pain assessment in people living with dementia.
A descriptive cross-sectional survey was conducted between July 2022 and April 2023.
An online survey comprised of demographics, knowledge scale, and beliefs scale relating to pain assessment in dementia was distributed to registered nurses (RNs) caring for people living with dementia in Australia.
RNs (N = 131) completed the survey. Most respondents were females (87.0%) and self-identified as Caucasian (60.3%). The mean beliefs score was 72.60 (±6.39) out of a maximum possible score of 95. RNs' beliefs about pain assessment varied based on their education, dementia pain assessment knowledge, nursing experience, and ethnicity. Hierarchical multiple regression analysis revealed factors significantly related to the beliefs score (i.e. education and dementia pain assessment knowledge).
The relationship between education and knowledge, and the beliefs score indicates the potential to improve RNs' knowledge and overcome their erroneous beliefs about pain assessment in dementia.
Education and training in assessing pain in people living with dementia should be tailored to overcome RNs' misconceived beliefs. These programmes should be integrated into continuous learning programmes.
Some RNs' beliefs about pain assessment in dementia were not evidence-based, and knowledge and educational status were the strongest factors related to RNs' beliefs. RNs' erroneous beliefs about pain assessment in dementia need to be addressed to improve pain assessment and management. Researchers should explore the potential of educational interventions to overcome RNs' misconceived beliefs about pain assessment in dementia.
This study was reported adhering to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology checklist.
RNs caring for people living with dementia participated as survey respondents. Additionally, RNs were involved in the pre-testing of the study's survey instrument.
This study aimed to examine (a) changes in coping strategies and vicarious post-traumatic growth (VPTG) across three timepoints of the COVID-19 pandemic among nurses; (b) discrete groups of nurses with unique coping profiles and (c) the association of these coping profiles with VPTG across the timepoints.
Although literature abounds with the negative mental health consequences of the pandemic among healthcare professionals, much less is known about the positive consequences on nurses, the coping strategies that they use, and how these change over time.
This was a cross-sectional web-based survey at three timepoints during the pandemic.
A sample of 429 nurses completed online the Post-Traumatic Growth Inventory (PTGI) and the Brief Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced Inventory (COPE) to measure vicarious post-traumatic growth (VPTG) and coping strategies, respectively. The STROBE checklist was used to report the present study.
Significantly higher VPTG scores were observed during the third timepoint. Different coping strategies were employed across the three timepoints. Nurses responded to the pandemic either with an active, an avoidant or a passive coping profile. Significantly higher VPTG levels were reported by the nurses of the active profile compared to those of the passive profile, whereas the difference between active and avoidant profiles was not significant.
Notwithstanding the preponderance of the nurses with the active coping profile in achieving high VPTG, the avoidant copers had more gains (VPTG) than the passive copers, suggesting that doing something to cope with the stressor—let it be trying to avoid it—was better than doing nothing.
The identification of distinct coping profiles among nurses and their association with VPTG is of particular use to policymakers and practitioners in developing tailored prevention and intervention efforts to help the nurses effectively manage the demands of the pandemic.
No patient or public contribution since the study was exclusively conducted by the authors.
To identify how family caregivers adapt to the caregiving role following a relative's COVID-19-related intensive care unit (ICU) hospitalisation.
Family caregiving is often associated with poor health amongst caregivers which may limit their capacity to effectively support patients. Though severe COVID-19 infection has necessitated increasing numbers of persons who require caregiver support, little is known about these caregivers, the persons they are caring for, or the strategies used to effectively adjust to the caregiving role.
A qualitative descriptive study design was adopted, and findings are reported using COREQ.
A secondary analysis of transcripts from semi-structured interviews conducted with recently discharged ICU patients who had COVID-19 (n = 16) and their family caregivers (n = 16) was completed using thematic analysis. MAXQDA 2020 and Miro were used to organise data and complete coding. Analysis involved a structured process of open and closed coding to identify and confirm themes that elucidated adaptation to family caregiving.
Six themes highlight how family caregivers adapt to the caregiving role following an ICU COVID-19-related hospitalisation including (1) engaging the support of family and friends, (2) increased responsibilities to accommodate caregiving, (3) managing emotions, (4) managing infection control, (5) addressing patient independence and (6) engaging support services. These themes were found to be congruent with the Roy adaptation model.
Family caregiving is a stressful transition following a patient's acute hospitalisation. Effective adaptation requires flexibility and sufficient support, beginning with the care team who can adequately prepare the family for the anticipated challenges of recovery.
Clinical teams may improve post-hospitalisation care outcomes of patients by preparing families to effectively adjust to the caregiver role—particularly in identifying sufficient support resources.
Participation of patients/caregivers in this study was limited to the data provided through participant interviews.