Abstract
Purpose Increase screening for pain in adults with cerebral palsy (CP) across three centers and examine factors associated with pain that affect activities.
Materials and Methods Using the quality improvement (QI) infrastructure of the Cerebral Palsy Research Network (CPRN), we implemented interventions to improve screening at clinic visits for pain that affects activities for adults with CP. Three physicians from two CPRN centers performed interventions August 2021- June 2023 before spreading to a fourth physician at a third CPRN center October 2022. To track progress, we collected visit data cross sectionally every two weeks. Descriptive statistics, analysis of variance, and logistic regression evaluated relationships in a sample cohort of all visits after screening practices had been established.
Results Screening improved from 42% at baseline to over 90%. After three months of sustained screening, we assessed 423 unique visits. Pain was reported at 185/423 (44%) of the visits. Of the 185 with pain reported, 100 (54%) reported pain that affected activities. Increasing age, female gender, and motor function were associated with pain (p<.001) and pain that affects activities (p<.01). Females reported pain 3.4 and pain that affects activity 2.2 times more than males.
Conclusion QI methodology was successful at improving screening for pain that affects activities in adults with CP at clinic visits. Lower rates of pain were found (44%) than previous reports, with similar findings about pain affecting activities and associated characteristics. We propose continued screening with improvement in differentiating proxy vs self-report and including other domains of pain important to guide care such as location and chronicity.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The Ethics Committee/IRB of the University of Hartford gave approval for secondary data analysis and the project was deemed exempt from IRB oversight.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
garey.noritz{at}nationwidechildrens.org, elizabeth.lucas{at}nationwidechildrens.org, eb3373{at}cumc.columbia.edu, hfa2111{at}cumc.columbia.edu, cristina.sarmiento{at}cuanschutz.edu, dthorpe{at}med.unc.edu, snichols{at}mwph.org, kreschme{at}med.umich.edu, stevewis{at}pitt.edu, gannotti{at}hartford.edu
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.