IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/clnure/v8y1999i1p69-83.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Testing a Model of the Nursing Assessment of Infant Pain

Author

Listed:
  • Barbara F. Fuller
  • Madalynn Neu

    (University of Colorado School of Nursing)

  • Maureen Smith

    (The Children’s Hospital, Denver, CO)

  • Carol P. Vojir

    (University of Colorado School of Nursing)

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to test whether elements of an infant pain assessment model interacted as postulated by the model. The elements are the infant’s response to comfort measures and the principle of consolability. Four different scenarios for each of 16 videotaped infants were prepared. Each scenario represented one of four different combinations of likelihood of pain and consolability and consisted of a videotape plus written clinical information. Forty-eight volunteer pediatric nurses assessed infant pain of 16 scenarios, each depicting one of the 16 infants. Mean level of assessed pain was highest for the “high likelihood of pain and difficult to console†group, second highest for the “high likelihood of pain and easily consoled†group, third highest for the “low likelihood of pain and difficult to console†group and least for the “low likelihood of pain and easily consoled†group. Findings supported the infant pain assessment model.

Suggested Citation

  • Barbara F. Fuller & Madalynn Neu & Maureen Smith & Carol P. Vojir, 1999. "Testing a Model of the Nursing Assessment of Infant Pain," Clinical Nursing Research, , vol. 8(1), pages 69-83, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:clnure:v:8:y:1999:i:1:p:69-83
    DOI: 10.1177/10547739922158151
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/10547739922158151
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/10547739922158151?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:clnure:v:8:y:1999:i:1:p:69-83. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.