Made available in DSpace on 2014-12-17T14:46:44Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1
WeruskaAC_DISSERT.pdf: 2300624 bytes, checksum: 62992c8fc00af876eb2b70eeec52ddfd (MD5)
Previous issue date: 2010-11-04 / Coordena??o de Aperfei?oamento de Pessoal de N?vel Superior / Quasi-experimental study, with prospective data, comparative with quantitative approach, performed in a reference hospital, aiming to identify the effectiveness of the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) and McGill Pain Questionnaire, used simultaneously, to evaluate a group of patients with oncologic pain (Experimental Group); to identify the effectiveness of the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) to evaluate a group of patients with oncologic pain (Control Group); to identify the resolution of pain according to prescribed medication, considering the result of the rating scales, and to compare it between the two groups of patients in the study. The population consisted of 100 patients, with both the experimental and control groups being composed of 50 people, with data collected from February to April 2010. The results show that in the experimental group, 32% of the patients were aged 60 to 69, 80% were female; 30% had a primary tumor in the breast, 58% had metastasis, and on 70% the disease was localized. In the first pain evaluation, 26% identified it as light; 46%, moderate; and 28%, severe; with an average of 5.50. In the second pain evaluation, 2% reported no pain; 70%, light; 26%, moderate. and 2%, severe, with an average of 3.30. On those with moderate pain, 60% used non-opioid medicine, 25% under severe pain were medicated with non-opioids and 41.67% with weak opioids. Regarding the Pain Management Index (PMI), 44.0% were rated as "-1". In the control group, 28% were aged 40 to 49, and 54% were male; 20% had primary tumor in the breast and genital-urinary system, consecutively; 56% presented metastasis; on 64% the disease was localized. In the first pain evaluation, 14% considered it light; 42%, moderate; and 44%, severe; with an average of 6.26. In the second pain evaluation, 18% did not signal pain; on 38% pain was light; 40%, moderate; and 4%, severe; with an average of 3.0. Regarding medicine therapy, 71.43% with moderate pain used non-opioids, 22.73% with severe pain used non-opioids and 27.27% weak opioids. Considering PMI, 42% were rated "-1"; and 42%, rated "0". We conclude that, despite the importance of pain as the 5th vital sign, it is still under-identified and under-treated by professionals. Nevertheless, studied oncologic patients had a tendency to report pain more easily when evaluated with the NRS instrument than with the combined use of NRS and MPQ. We believe, however, that the combination of these two instruments represents a more effective evaluation of pain, as it allows comprehension of its quantitative and qualitative aspects. We recommend, however, the replication of this study on a larger population, for a longer span of time, and consequently generating more evaluations, so this can confirm or deny the hypothesis that NRS and MPQ can, together, better evaluate pain on the oncologic patient / Estudo de car?ter quase experimental, com dados prospectivos, comparativo e de abordagem quantitativa, realizado em um hospital de refer?ncia, objetivando: identificar a efetividade da Escala de Estimativa Num?rica (NRS) e do Question?rio para dor de McGill (MPQ), utilizados simultaneamente, para avaliar um grupo de pacientes com dor oncol?gica (Grupo Experimental); identificar a efetividade da Escala de Estimativa Num?rica (NRS) para avaliar um grupo de pacientes com dor oncol?gica (Grupo-Controle); identificar a resolutividade da dor de acordo com a medica??o prescrita, considerando o resultado das escalas de avalia??o, e compar?-la entre os dois grupos de pacientes estudados. A popula??o constou de 100 pacientes, tanto o grupo experimental como o de controle sendo compostos por 50 pessoas, com dados coletados de fevereiro a abril de 2010. Os resultados mostram que, no grupo experimental, 32% dos pacientes estavam na faixa de 60 a 69 anos, sendo 80% de mulheres; 30% possu?am tumor prim?rio na mama, 58% timham met?stase, e em 70% a doen?a estava locorregional. Na primeira avalia??o da dor, 26 % a identificaram como leve; 46%, moderada; e 28%, severa; com m?dia de 5,50. Na segunda avalia??o da dor, 2% tiveram aus?ncia de dor; 70%, leve; 26%, moderada; e 2%, severa; com m?dia de 3,30. Naqueles com dor moderada, 60% utilizaram medicamentos n?o opioides, 25% com dor severa foram medicados com n?o opioides e 41,67% com opioides fracos. Em rela??o ao ?ndice de Controle da Dor (PMI), 44,0% tiveram valor -1 . No grupo controle, 28% estavam na faixa et?ria entre 40 a 49 anos, e 54% eram homens; 20% tinham tumor prim?rio na mama e geniturin?rio, consecutivamente; 56% apresentaram met?stase; em 64% a doen?a estava locorregional. Na primeira avalia??o da dor, 14% a consideraram leve; 42%, moderada; e 44% severa; com m?dia de 6,26. Na segunda avalia??o da dor, 18% n?o apresentaram esse sinal; em 38% a dor foi leve; 40%, moderada; e 4%, severa; com m?dia de 3,0. Em rela??o ? terapia medicamentosa, 71,43% com dor moderada utilizaram n?o opioide, 22,73% com dor severa usaram n?o opioide e 27,27% opioide fraco. Considerando o PMI, 42% apresentaram ?ndice -1 ; e 42%, valor 0 . Conclu?mos, que apesar da import?ncia da dor como 5? sinal vital, ela continua sendo subidentificada e subtratada pelos profissionais. Entretanto, os pacientes oncol?gicos estudados tendiam a reportar a dor com mais facilidade quando avaliados com o instrumento NRS do que quando havia o uso combinado da NRS e do MPQ. Contudo, acreditamos que a jun??o desses dois instrumentos representa uma avalia??o mais eficaz da dor, por compreender as suas faces quantitativa e qualitativa. Recomendamos, por?m, que este estudo seja replicado com uma popula??o maior, por um per?odo de tempo mais longo, e, consequentemente, gerando mais avalia??es, para que se possa confirmar ou n?o a hip?tese de que a NRS e o MPQ, juntos, avaliem melhor a dor do paciente oncol?gico
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:IBICT/oai:repositorio.ufrn.br:123456789/14706 |
| Date | 04 November 2010 |
| Creators | Costa, Weruska Alcoforado |
| Contributors | CPF:02567415491, http://buscatextual.cnpq.br/buscatextual/visualizacv.do?id=K4792903Z9&dataRevisao=null, N?brega, Maria Miriam Lima da, CPF:13212559420, http://buscatextual.cnpq.br/buscatextual/visualizacv.do?id=K4797014T6&dataRevisao=null, Germano, Raimunda Medeiros, CPF:00446114472, http://buscatextual.cnpq.br/buscatextual/visualizacv.do?id=K4721938D8, Vilar, Rosana L?cia Alves de, CPF:23092025415, http://lattes.cnpq.br/3310631449276616, Farias, Glaucea Maciel de |
| Publisher | Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Programa de P?s-Gradua??o em Enfermagem, UFRN, BR, Assist?ncia ? Sa?de |
| Source Sets | IBICT Brazilian ETDs |
| Language | Portuguese |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion, info:eu-repo/semantics/masterThesis |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Source | reponame:Repositório Institucional da UFRN, instname:Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, instacron:UFRN |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
Page generated in 0.0027 seconds