Pain vs comfort scores after Caesarean section: A randomized trial

69Citations
Citations of this article
143Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

BackgroundThe use of negative words, such as 'sting' and 'pain', can increase patient pain and anxiety. We aimed to determine how pain scores compare with comfort scores and how the technique of pain assessment affects patient perceptions and experiences after operation.MethodsAfter Caesarean section, 300 women were randomized before post-anaesthesia review. Group P women were asked to rate their pain on a 0-10-point verbal numerical rating scale (VNRS), where '0' was 'no pain' and '10' was 'worst pain imaginable'. Group C women were asked to rate comfort on a 0-10-point VNRS, where '0' was 'no comfort' and '10' was 'most comfortable'. All women were asked whether the Caesarean wound was bothersome, unpleasant, associated with tissue damage, and whether additional analgesia was desired.ResultsThe median (inter-quartile range) VNRS pain scores was higher than inverted comfort scores at rest, 2 (1, 4) vs 2 (0.5, 3), P=0.001, and movement, 6 (4, 7) vs 4 (3, 5), P<0.001. Group P women were more likely to be bothered by their Caesarean section, had greater VNRS 'Bother' scores, 4 (2, 6) vs 1 (0, 3), P<0.001, perceived postoperative sensations as 'unpleasant' [relative risk (RR) 3.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.20, 4.23], P<0.001, and related to tissue damage rather than healing and recovery (RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.30, 3.18), P=0.001. Group P women were also more likely to request additional analgesia (RR 4.33, 95% CI 1.84, 10.22), P<0.001. ConclusionsAsking about pain and pain scores after Caesarean section adversely affects patient reports of their postoperative experiences. © 2013 Author.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Chooi, C. S. L., White, A. M., Tan, S. G. M., Dowling, K., & Cyna, A. M. (2013). Pain vs comfort scores after Caesarean section: A randomized trial. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 110(5), 780–787. https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aes517

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free