Pain assessment tools in adults with communication disorders: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Verbal communication is the "gold standard" for assessing pain. Consequently, individuals with communication disorders are particularly vulnerable to incomplete pain management. This review aims at identifying the current pain assessment instruments for adult patients with communication disorders.

METHODS

A systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted on PubMed, PEDRO, EBSCOhost, VHL and Cochrane databases from 2011 to 2023 using MeSH terms "pain assessment, "nonverbal communication" and "communication disorders" in conjunction with additional inclusion criteria: studies limited to humans, interventions involving adult patients, and empirical investigations.

RESULTS

Fifty articles were included in the review. Seven studies report sufficient data to perform the meta-analysis. Observational scales are the most common instruments to evaluate pain in individuals with communication disorders followed by physiological measures and facial recognition systems. While most pain assessments rely on observational scales, current evidence does not strongly endorse one scale over others for clinical practice. However, specific observational scales appear to be particularly suitable for identifying pain during certain potentially painful procedures, such as suctioning and mobilization, in these populations. Additionally, specific observational scales appear to be well-suited for certain conditions, such as mechanically ventilated patients.

CONCLUSIONS

While observational scales dominate pain assessment, no universal tool exists for adults with communication disorders. Specific scales exhibit promise for distinct populations, yet the diverse landscape of tools hampers a one-size-fits-all solution. Crucially, further high-quality research, offering quantitative data like reliability findings, is needed to identify optimal tools for various contexts. Clinicians should be informed to select tools judiciously, recognizing the nuanced appropriateness of each in diverse clinical situations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This systematic review is registered in PROSPERO (International prospective register of systematic reviews) with the ID: CRD42022323655 .

Automated facial recognition system using deep learning for pain assessment in adults with cerebral palsy

Objective

Assessing pain in individuals with neurological conditions like cerebral palsy is challenging due to limited self-reporting and expression abilities. Current methods lack sensitivity and specificity, underlining the need for a reliable evaluation protocol. An automated facial recognition system could revolutionize pain assessment for such patients.The research focuses on two primary goals: developing a dataset of facial pain expressions for individuals with cerebral palsy and creating a deep learning-based automated system for pain assessment tailored to this group.

Methods

The study trained ten neural networks using three pain image databases and a newly curated CP-PAIN Dataset of 109 images from cerebral palsy patients, classified by experts using the Facial Action Coding System.

Results

The InceptionV3 model demonstrated promising results, achieving 62.67% accuracy and a 61.12% F1 score on the CP-PAIN dataset. Explainable AI techniques confirmed the consistency of crucial features for pain identification across models.

Conclusion

The study underscores the potential of deep learning in developing reliable pain detection systems using facial recognition for individuals with communication impairments due to neurological conditions. A more extensive and diverse dataset could further enhance the models' sensitivity to subtle pain expressions in cerebral palsy patients and possibly extend to other complex neurological disorders. This research marks a significant step toward more empathetic and accurate pain management for vulnerable populations.

Pain Management in the Most Vulnerable Intellectual Disability: A Review

This review is made up of two parts; the first part discussing intellectual disability (ID) in general, while the second part covers the pain associated with intellectual disability and the challenges and practical tips for the management of pain associated with (ID). Intellectual disability is characterized by deficits in general mental abilities, such as reasoning, problem solving, planning, abstract thinking, judgment, academic learning, and learning from experience. ID is a disorder with no definite cause but has multiple risk factors, including genetic, medical, and acquired. Vulnerable populations such as individuals with intellectual disability may experience more pain than the general population due to additional comorbidities and secondary conditions, or at least the same frequency of pain as in the general population. Pain in patients with ID remains largely unrecognized and untreated due to barriers to verbal and non-verbal communication. It is important to identify patients at risk to promptly prevent or minimize those risk factors. As pain is multifactorial, thus, a multimodal approach using both pharmacotherapy and non-pharmacological management is often the most beneficial. Parents and caregivers should be oriented to this disorder, given adequate training and education, and be actively involved with the treatment program. Significant work to create new pain assessment tools to improve pain practices for individuals with ID has taken place, including neuroimaging and electrophysiological studies. Recent advances in technology-based interventions such as virtual reality and artificial intelligence are rapidly growing to help give patients with ID promising results to develop pain coping skills with effective reduction of pain and anxiety. Therefore, this narrative review highlights the different aspects regarding the current status of the pain associated with intellectual disability, with more emphasis on the recent pieces of evidence for the assessment and management of pain among populations with intellectual disability.

Pain research and children and adolescents with severe intellectual disability: ethical challenges and imperatives

Children with severe intellectual disabilities encounter inequities in pain-related care, yet little pain research involves this population. A considerable issue with pain research in this population is its ethical complexity. This Viewpoint delineates the ethical challenges of pain research involving children (aged 2-12 years) and adolescents (aged 13-21 years) with severe intellectual disabilities. There are two main issues. First, some of the standard methods for assessing pain and pain sensitivity are not suitable for individuals with severe intellectual disability, who are often non-verbal and unable to understand or follow instructions. Second, children and adolescents with severe intellectual disability cannot provide informed consent or assent to participate in pain research, and their dissent is not always recognised. The existing ethical guidelines for pain research by the International Association for the Study of Pain provide helpful, but general, guidance. This Viewpoint supplements these guidelines and uses a well established framework for assessing the ethics of clinical research to highlight points relevant to designing, doing, reviewing, and evaluating research involving children and adolescents with severe intellectual disability, focusing on issues that are unaddressed in existing guidance.

Behavioral pain indicators for adults with an intellectual disability: a scoping review protocol

OBJECTIVE

This scoping review aims to identify and map the behavioral pain indicators observed when adults with an intellectual disability experience pain.

INTRODUCTION

Adults with an intellectual disability have more health problems than the general population. The likelihood that this population will experience pain is high, but intellectual disability can obstruct the verbal expression of pain. Adults with an intellectual disability express pain via behavioral pain indicators; however, because no behavioral pain scale exists for this population, observers may misinterpret the pain experienced by adults with an intellectual disability.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

The review will examine literature about behavioral pain indicators for adults with any type of intellectual disability who are suffering from any type of pain in any country or care setting.

METHODS

The review will be conducted according to the JBI recommendations for scoping reviews. A preliminary search focusing on the concepts of intellectual disability and pain measurement was conducted for PubMed and CINAHL in March 2022. Once the protocol is validated, searches will also be carried out in Embase, JBI EBP Database, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, PsycINFO, Web of Science Core Collection, ERIC, Google Scholar, MedNar, and the websites of relevant professional associations. Titles and abstracts, and then full-text studies, will be selected independently by 2 researchers and assessed against the inclusion criteria. Relevant information will be imported into a data chart. Any behavioral pain indicators identified will be classified into 14 behavioral categories.

REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER

Open Science Framework osf.io/8xckf.

Unique Pain Responses in Different Etiological Subgroups of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

We studied whether there exist variations in pain responses between different intellectual and developmental disability (IDD) etiologies. Self-reports and facial expressions (Facial Action Coding System = FACS) were recorded during experimental pressure stimuli and compared among 31 individuals with IDD-13 with cerebral palsy (CP), nine with Down syndrome (DS), nine with unspecified origin (UIDD)-and among 15 typically developing controls (TDCs). The CP and DS groups had higher pain ratings and FACS scores compared to the UIDD and TDC groups, and steeper stimulus-response functions. The DS group exhibited the most diverse facial expressions. There were variations in the foci of facial expressions between groups. It appears that different IDD etiologies display distinct pain responses.

Somatosensory deficits and neural correlates in cerebral palsy: a scoping review

AIM

To synthetize studies assessing somatosensory deficits and alterations in cerebral responses evoked by somatosensory stimulation in individuals with cerebral palsy (CP) compared to typically developing individuals.

METHOD

A scoping review of the literature was performed in the MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, CINAHL, Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews, and Web of Science databases (last search carried out on 6th and 7th August 2020) with a combination of keywords related to CP and somatosensory functions. Somatosensory deficits were measured with clinical tests and alterations in cerebral responses were measured with functional magnetic resonance imaging, electroencephalography, and magnetoencephalography.

RESULTS

Forty-eight articles were included. Overall, 1463 participants with CP (mean [SD] age 13y 1mo [4y 11mo], range 1-55y; 416 males, 319 females, sex not identified for the remaining participants) and 1478 controls (mean [SD] age 13y 1mo [5y 8mo], range 1-42y; 362 males, 334 females, sex not identified for the remaining participants) were included in the scoping review. For tactile function, most studies reported registration (8 out of 13) or perception (21 out of 21) deficits in participants with CP. For proprioception, most studies also reported registration (6 out of 8) or perception (10 out of 15) deficits. Pain function has not been studied as much, but most studies reported registration (2 out of 3) or perception (3 out of 3) alterations. Neuroimaging findings (18 studies) showed alterations in the somatotopy, morphology, latency, or amplitude of cortical responses evoked by somatosensory stimuli.

INTERPRETATION

Despite the heterogeneity in the methods employed, most studies reported somatosensory deficits. The focus has been mainly on tactile and proprioceptive function, whereas pain has received little attention. Future research should rigorously define the methods employed and include a sample that is more representative of the population with CP. What this paper adds Most of the papers reviewed found tactile registration and perception deficits in the upper limbs. Proprioceptive deficits were generally observed in cerebral palsy but results were heterogeneous. Pain has received little attention compared to tactile and proprioceptive functions. Neuroimaging studies supported behavioral observations. Alterations were observed for both the most and least affected limb.

Pain Behavior of People with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Coded with the New PAIC-15 and Validation of Its Arabic Translation

Pain management necessitates assessment of pain; the gold standard being self-report. Among individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD), self-report may be limited and therefore indirect methods for pain assessment are required. A new, internationally agreed upon and user-friendly observational tool was recently published—the Pain Assessment in Impaired Cognition (PAIC-15). The current study’s aims were: to test the use of the PAIC-15 in assessing pain among people with IDD and to translate the PAIC-15 into Arabic for dissemination among Arabic-speaking professionals. Pain behavior following experimental pressure stimuli was analyzed among 30 individuals with IDD and 15 typically developing controls (TDCs). Translation of the PAIC followed the forward–backward approach; and reliability between the two versions and between raters was calculated. Observational scores with the PAIC-15 exhibited a stimulus–response relationship with pressure stimulation. Those of the IDD group were greater than those of the TDC group. The overall agreement between the English and Arabic versions was high (ICC = 0.89); single items exhibited moderate to high agreement levels. Inter-rater reliability was high (ICC = 0.92). Both versions of the PAIC-15 are feasible and reliable tools to record pain behavior in individuals with IDD. Future studies using these tools in clinical settings are warranted.

[Challenges in pain assessment and management among individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities : German version]

INTRODUCTION

Intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) include conditions associated with physical, learning, language, behavioural, and/or intellectual impairment. Pain is a common and debilitating secondary condition compromising functional abilities and quality of life.

OBJECTIVES

This article addresses scientific and clinical challenges in pain assessment and management in individuals with severe IDD.

METHODS

This Clinical Update aligns with the 2019 IASP Global Year Against Pain in the Vulnerable and selectively reviews recurring issues as well as the best available evidence and practice.

RESULTS

The past decade of pain research has involved the development of standardized assessment tools appropriate for individuals with severe IDD; however, there is little empirical evidence that pain is being better assessed or managed clinically. There is limited evidence available to inform effective pain management practices; therefore, treatment approaches are largely empiric and highly variable. This is problematic because individuals with IDD are at risk of developing drug-related side effects, and treatment approaches effective for other populations may exacerbate pain in IDD populations. Scientifically, we are especially challenged by biases in self-reported and proxy-reported pain scores, identifying valid outcome measures for treatment trials, being able to adequately power studies due to small sample sizes, and our inability to easily explore the underlying pain mechanisms due to compromised ability to self-report.

CONCLUSION

Despite the critical challenges, new developments in research and knowledge translation activities in pain and IDD continue to emerge, and there are ongoing international collaborations.

Increased heart rate functions as a signal of acute distress in non-communicating persons with intellectual disability

Intellectual disability (ID) affects approximately 1% of the population. Some patients with severe or profound ID are essentially non-communicating and therefore risk experiencing pain and distress without being able to notify their caregivers, which is a major health issue. This real-world proof of concept study aimed to see if heart rate (HR) monitoring could reveal whether non-communicating persons with ID experience acute pain or distress in their daily lives. We monitored HR in 14 non-communicating participants with ID in their daily environment to see if specific situations were associated with increased HR. We defined increased HR as being > 1 standard deviation above the daily mean and lasting > 5 s. In 11 out of 14 participants, increased HR indicated pain or distress in situations that were not previously suspected to be stressful, e.g. passive stretching of spastic limbs or being transported in patient lifts. Increased HR suggesting joy was detected in three participants (during car rides, movies). In some situations that were previously suspected to be stressful, absence of HR increase suggested absence of pain or distress. We conclude that HR monitoring may identify acute pain and distress in non-communicating persons with ID, allowing for improved health care for this patient group.

Specific Behavioral Responses Rather Than Autonomic Responses Can Indicate and Quantify Acute Pain among Individuals with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

Individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) are at a high risk of experiencing pain. Pain management requires assessment, a challenging mission considering the impaired communication skills in IDD. We analyzed subjective and objective responses following calibrated experimental stimuli to determine whether they can differentiate between painful and non-painful states, and adequately quantify pain among individuals with IDD. Eighteen adults with IDD and 21 healthy controls (HC) received experimental pressure stimuli (innocuous, mildly noxious, and moderately noxious). Facial expressions (analyzed with the Facial Action Coding System (FACS)) and autonomic function (heart rate, heart rate variability (HRV), pulse, and galvanic skin response (GSR)) were continuously monitored, and self-reports using a pyramid and a numeric scale were obtained. Significant stimulus-response relationships were observed for the FACS and pyramid scores (but not for the numeric scores), and specific action units could differentiate between the noxious levels among the IDD group. FACS scores of the IDD group were higher and steeper than those of HC. HRV was overall lower among the IDD group, and GSR increased during noxious stimulation in both groups. In conclusion, the facial expressions and self-reports seem to reliably detect and quantify pain among individuals with mild-moderate IDD; their enhanced responses may indicate increased pain sensitivity that requires careful clinical consideration.

Challenges in pain assessment and management among individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities

Pain is common for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities, and we need to accelerate the use of evidence-based approaches to assess and manage pain.

Introduction:

Intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) include conditions associated with physical, learning, language, behavioural, and/or intellectual impairment. Pain is a common and debilitating secondary condition compromising functional abilities and quality of life.

Objectives:

This article addresses scientific and clinical challenges in pain assessment and management in individuals with severe IDD.

Methods:

This Clinical Update aligns with the 2019 IASP Global Year Against Pain in the Vulnerable and selectively reviews recurring issues as well as the best available evidence and practice.

Results:

The past decade of pain research has involved the development of standardized assessment tools appropriate for individuals with severe IDD; however, there is little empirical evidence that pain is being better assessed or managed clinically. There is limited evidence available to inform effective pain management practices; therefore, treatment approaches are largely empiric and highly variable. This is problematic because individuals with IDD are at risk of developing drug-related side effects, and treatment approaches effective for other populations may exacerbate pain in IDD populations. Scientifically, we are especially challenged by biases in self-reported and proxy-reported pain scores, identifying valid outcome measures for treatment trials, being able to adequately power studies due to small sample sizes, and our inability to easily explore the underlying pain mechanisms due to compromised ability to self-report.

Conclusion:

Despite the critical challenges, new developments in research and knowledge translation activities in pain and IDD continue to emerge, and there are ongoing international collaborations.