↓ Skip to main content

Pain treatment for nursing home residents differs according to cognitive state – a cross-sectional study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Geriatrics, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
100 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Pain treatment for nursing home residents differs according to cognitive state – a cross-sectional study
Published in
BMC Geriatrics, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12877-016-0295-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ulrike Bauer, Stefan Pitzer, Maria Magdalena Schreier, Jürgen Osterbrink, Reinhard Alzner, Bernhard Iglseder

Abstract

Communication skills are known to decrease with advancing cognitive impairment. Analgesic treatment in long-term care may be deficient due to the residents' impaired ability to communicate their pain and needs. Undertreated pain frequently leads to rising BPSD in residents with cognitive impairment, resulting in a treatment with antipsychotics. Aim of this study was the analysis of differences in assessment and pharmacological treatment of pain in nursing home residents relative to their cognitive state and ability to articulate pain. Data stems from the baseline of a non-experimental pre-post-study in 12 Austrian nursing homes. Residents' pain prevalence in relation to pain assessment and cognitive decline was assessed, data on medical diagnoses and prescriptions were retrieved from the nursing homes' documentation (n = 425). Residents were first divided into two groups: Residents with MMSE ≥ 18 were selected into group CUS (cognitively unimpaired/slightly impaired), residents with MMSE ≤ 17 were selected into group CI (cognitively moderately to severely impaired). CI residents were then sub-grouped according to their ability to communicate pain via the Verbal Rating Scale (VRS) (i.e. group CI-V, group CI-NV). Pain behavior of CI residents was assessed with a modified German version of PAINAD. Group differences were tested with ANOVA and H-test, 95 % confidence intervals were calculated and associations were tested with log-binomial regression. Pain prevalence in CI residents irrespective of their ability to communicate pain was 80 % and exceeded the CUS group prevalence significantly by 14 %. CI residents had significantly less analgesic prescriptions. Furthermore, CI residents have a significantly higher risk of getting no analgesics when in pain than CUS residents (CI-V: RR =2.6, CI-NV: RR =3.4). Use of antipsychotics was high in all groups (49 - 65 %) with more prescriptions in the cognitively impaired group. Results point toward an underuse of pain medication in cognitively impaired residents, especially those unable to communicate pain verbally. The implementation of standardized pain assessments adapted to the cognitive abilities of residents may foster the recognition of pain, warrant optimized pain management, reduce inadequate medication and consequently raise the chance of equally effective pain treatment regardless of cognitive state.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Unknown 98 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 20%
Student > Bachelor 15 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 7%
Other 5 5%
Other 19 19%
Unknown 26 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 26 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 20 20%
Psychology 6 6%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Other 12 12%
Unknown 29 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 06 December 2022.
All research outputs
#2,160,390
of 23,275,636 outputs
Outputs from BMC Geriatrics
#527
of 3,297 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,979
of 354,124 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Geriatrics
#8
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,275,636 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,297 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 354,124 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.