The current IASP definition of pain as "An unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage, or described in terms of such damage" was recommended by the Subcommittee on Taxonomy and adopted by the IASP Council in 1979. This definition has become accepted widely by health care professionals and researchers in the pain field and adopted by several professional, governmental, and nongovernmental organizations, including the World Health Organization. In recent years, some in the field have reasoned that advances in our understanding of pain warrant a re-evaluation of the definition and have proposed modifications. Therefore, in 2018, the IASP formed a 14-member, multinational Presidential Task Force comprising individuals with broad expertise in clinical and basic science related to pain to evaluate the current definition and accompanying note and recommend whether they should be retained or changed. This review provides a synopsis of the critical concepts, the analysis of comments from the IASP membership and public, and the committee's final recommendations for revisions to the definition and notes, which were discussed over a 2-year period. The task force ultimately recommended that the definition of pain be revised to "An unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with, or resembling that associated with, actual or potential tissue damage," and that the accompanying notes be updated to a bulleted list that included the etymology. The revised definition and notes were unanimously accepted by the IASP Council early this year."Scientific and medical definitions are tools. Even when we recognize them as imperfect or provisional, awaiting replacement by an improved version, they perform work that cannot be accomplished by less precise instruments." David B. Morris [27] * Letter to the task force from M. Aydede titled "On the IASP Presidential Task Force's proposal for a new definition of 'pain'," dated

The PIPP is a newly developed pain assessment measure for premature infants with beginning content and construct validity. The practicality and feasibility for using the PIPP in clinical practice will be determined in prospective research in the clinical setting.

The aim of this study was to systematically review the psychometric properties, interpretability and feasibility of self-report pain intensity measures for children and adolescents for use in clinical trials evaluating pain treatments. Databases were searched for self-report measures of single-item ratings of pain intensity for children aged 3-18 years. A total of 34 single-item self-report measures were found. The measures' psychometric properties, interpretability and feasibility, were evaluated independently by two investigators according to a set of psychometric criteria. Six single-item measures met the a priori criteria and were included in the final analysis. While these six scales were determined as psychometrically sound and show evidence of responsivity, they had varying degrees of interpretability and feasibility. No single scale was found to be optimal for use with all types of pain or across the developmental age span. Specific recommendations regarding the most psychometrically sound and feasible measures based on age/developmental level and type of pain are discussed. Future research is needed to strengthen the measurement of pain in clinical trials with children.

No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundOrganizational contextual features have been recognized as important determinants for implementing evidence-based practices across healthcare settings for over a decade. However, implementation scientists have not reached consensus on which features are most important for implementing evidence-based practices. The aims of this review were to identify the most commonly reported organizational contextual features that influence the implementation of evidence-based practices across healthcare settings, and to describe how these features affect implementation.MethodsAn integrative review was undertaken following literature searches in CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases from January 2005 to June 2017. English language, peer-reviewed empirical studies exploring organizational context in at least one implementation initiative within a healthcare setting were included. Quality appraisal of the included studies was performed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Inductive content analysis informed data extraction and reduction.ResultsThe search generated 5152 citations. After removing duplicates and applying eligibility criteria, 36 journal articles were included. The majority (n = 20) of the study designs were qualitative, 11 were quantitative, and 5 used a mixed methods approach. Six main organizational contextual features (organizational culture; leadership; networks and communication; resources; evaluation, monitoring and feedback; and champions) were most commonly reported to influence implementation outcomes in the selected studies across a wide range of healthcare settings.ConclusionsWe identified six organizational contextual features that appear to be interrelated and work synergistically to influence the implementation of evidence-based practices within an organization. Organizational contextual features did not influence implementation efforts independently from other features. Rather, features were interrelated and often influenced each other in complex, dynamic ways to effect change. These features corresponded to the constructs in the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), which supports the use of CFIR as a guiding framework for studies that explore the relationship between organizational context and implementation. Organizational culture was most commonly reported to affect implementation. Leadership exerted influence on the five other features, indicating it may be a moderator or mediator that enhances or impedes the implementation of evidence-based practices. Future research should focus on how organizational features interact to influence implementation effectiveness.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13643-018-0734-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

ObjectiveThe objective of this project was to develop core competencies in pain assessment and management for prelicensure health professional education. Such core pain competencies common to all prelicensure health professionals have not been previously reported.MethodsAn interprofessional executive committee led a consensus-building process to develop the core competencies. An in-depth literature review was conducted followed by engagement of an interprofessional Competency Advisory Committee to critique competencies through an iterative process. A 2-day summit was held so that consensus could be reached.ResultsThe consensus-derived competencies were categorized within four domains: multidimensional nature of pain, pain assessment and measurement, management of pain, and context of pain management. These domains address the fundamental concepts and complexity of pain; how pain is observed and assessed; collaborative approaches to treatment options; and application of competencies across the life span in the context of various settings, populations, and care team models. A set of values and guiding principles are embedded within each domain.ConclusionsThese competencies can serve as a foundation for developing, defining, and revising curricula and as a resource for the creation of learning activities across health professions designed to advance care that effectively responds to pain.

No abstract