Methodological challenges in conducting instrumentation research in non-communicative palliative care patients
- PMID: 31759841
- PMCID: PMC7200296
- DOI: 10.1016/j.apnr.2019.151199
Methodological challenges in conducting instrumentation research in non-communicative palliative care patients
Abstract
Well-designed, rigorously implemented instrumentation studies are essential to develop valid, reliable pain assessment tools in non-communicative (non-self-reporting) palliative care patients. When conducting a pain instrumentation study, a research team identified methodologic challenges surrounding informed consent, eligibility criteria, acute pain operational definitions, patient recruitment, missing data, and study-related training during a run-in phase at the beginning of the project and during the conduct of the study. The team dealt with these challenges through identifying root causes, implementing remedial measures, and collecting data to demonstrate improvement or resolution. Effective strategies included obtaining Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval for a waiver of informed consent, modifying eligibility criteria, ensuring that operational definitions and study procedures were consistent with clinical practice, decreasing time from screening to data collection to improve recruitment, increasing study nurse staffing by re-budgeting grant funds, focusing time and resources on high accruing clinical units, revising processes to minimize missing data, and developing detailed training for users of the instrument. With these multi-pronged solutions, the team exceeded the patient accrual target by 25% within the funding period and reduced missing data. While pain instrumentation studies in non-communicative patients have similar challenges to other palliative care studies, some of the solutions may be unique and several are applicable to other palliative care studies, particularly instrumentation research. The team's experience may also be useful for funders and IRBs.
Keywords: Informed consent waiver; Methodologic challenges; Non-communicative patients; Pain assessment instrument; Palliative care.
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
References
-
- Abernathy AP, Capell WH, Aziz NM, Ritchie C, Prince-Paul M, Bennett RE, & Kutner JS (2014). Ethical conduct of palliative care research: Enhancing communication between investigators and institutional review boards. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 48(6), 1211–1221. 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2014.05.005. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
-
- McGuire DB, Kaiser KS, Soeken K, & Reifsnyder J (2011a). Measuring pain in non-communicative patients in the acute care setting: Psychometric evaluation of the Multidimensional Objective Pain Assessment Tool (MOPAT). Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 41, 299–300. 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2010.10.224. - DOI
-
- McGuire DB, Reifsnyder J, Soeken K, Kaiser KS, & Yeager KA (2011b). Assessing pain in non-]responsive hospice patients: Development and preliminary testing of the Multidimensional Objective Pain Assessment Tool (MOPAT). Journal of Palliative Medicine, 14(3), 287–292. 10.1089/jpm.2010.0302. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
