4.5 Article

Development and Validation of the Breakthrough Pain Assessment Tool (BAT) in Cancer Patients

Journal

JOURNAL OF PAIN AND SYMPTOM MANAGEMENT
Volume 48, Issue 4, Pages 619-631

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2013.10.026

Keywords

Breakthrough pain; episodic pain; cancer; pain assessment

Funding

  1. Palliative Care Research Funds at the Royal Surrey County Hospital/Royal Marsden Hospital

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Context. The successful management of breakthrough pain depends on a combination of adequate assessment, appropriate (individualized) treatment, and adequate re-assessment. Currently, there is no fully validated clinical assessment tool for breakthrough pain in cancer patients. Objectives. The aim of this project was to develop and validate a breakthrough pain assessment tool (the BAT) for use in the clinical setting. Methods. The content of the BAT was determined by reviewing the medical literature, conducting a Delphi process with experts in breakthrough pain and/or pain assessment and conducting semi-structured interviews with cancer patients with breakthrough pain. The tool was then subjected to a series of standard psychometric tests to assess its factor structure, validity (i.e., content validity, construct validity), reliability (i.e., internal consistency, test-retest reliability), and responsiveness to change. Results. The BAT comprised two pages with 14 questions. Factor analysis confirmed the presence of two underlying factors. Psychometric testing confirmed that the tool is valid, reliable, and responsive to change. Conclusion. This study provides initial evidence for the validity and reliability of the breakthrough pain assessment tool which may be used to facilitate the management of patients with breakthrough cancer pain in the clinical setting. (C) 2014 American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available