his.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Comparison of the PainMatcher and the Visual Analogue Scale for assessment of labour pain following administered pain relief treatment
Institute of Health and Care Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-9771-6640
Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology/Endocrinology, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg.
Institute of Clinical Sciences, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg.
University of Skövde, School of Life Sciences.
2011 (English)In: Midwifery, ISSN 0266-6138, E-ISSN 1532-3099, Vol. 27, no 1, E134-E139 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Objective: during childbirth, it is necessary to assess and monitor experienced pain and to evaluate the effect of pain relief treatment. The aim of this study was to compare the PainMatcher® (PM) with the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for the assessment of labour pain and the effect of pain relief treatment.Design: randomised controlled trial.Setting: labour ward with approximately 2500 childbirths per year in western Sweden.Participants: 57 women with labour pain treated with acupuncture or sterile water injections scored their electrical pain threshold and pain intensity with the PM. Pain intensity was also assessed with the VAS. Electrical pain threshold and pain intensity were assessed immediately after a uterine contraction before and 30, 60, 90, 120, 150 and 180 minutes after treatment.Measurements and findings: the results showed a weak correlation (r=0.13, p<0.05) between the pain intensity scores on the PM and the VAS. The PM detected changes (decrease) in pain intensity to a lower degree than the VAS. Surprisingly, in over 10% of sessions, women scored their pain intensity during a uterine contraction lower than their electrical pain threshold with the PM. However, electrical pain thresholds with the PM correlated well throughout all measurements.Conclusions: the PM is a reliable tool for the assessment of electrical pain threshold; however, the VAS is more sensitive than the PM for recording changes in pain intensity when assessing the effects of treatment on labour pain.Implications for practice: the PM and the VAS are not interchangeable in the case of labour pain, and there is still a need for research in this area to find a more suitable assessment instrument for the evaluation of labour pain.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Elsevier, 2011. Vol. 27, no 1, E134-E139 p.
Keyword [en]
Pain assessment, Visual Analogue Scale, PainMatcher, Labour pain
National Category
Medical and Health Sciences
Research subject
Medical sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:his:diva-3280DOI: 10.1016/j.midw.2009.03.004ISI: 000286621700003PubMedID: 19501433Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-79151470527OAI: oai:DiVA.org:his-3280DiVA: diva2:227027
Available from: 2009-07-08 Created: 2009-07-08 Last updated: 2014-08-05Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMedScopus

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Bergh, Ingrid H. E.Mårtensson, Lena
By organisation
School of Life Sciences
In the same journal
Midwifery
Medical and Health Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Altmetric score

Total: 1401 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf