Development of the neonatal pain response variable set: a mixed methods consensus process.

While over 40 neonatal pain assessment scales have been published, owing to a lack of consensus and standardized metrics, there are more than 100 assessment indicators with varying descriptors and quality differences. This study aims to reach a consensus on optimal and comprehensive variables for neonatal pain assessment, leading to the development of a multidimensional neonatal pain response variable set. This study consisted of three phases: (1) A literature review was conducted to identify influencing factors and assessment indicators of neonatal pain response. (2) Panel meetings involving neonatal healthcare professionals evaluated and screened factors and indicators to develop an initial draft of the variable set. (3) Through two rounds of Delphi study achieved consensus, and determined the neonatal pain response variable set. Through a literature review and a panel meeting, the identified factors and indicators were categorized into contextual, physiological, and behavioral variables, forming an initial draft of the variable set. Sixteen professionals participated in two rounds of the Delphi study, with response rates exceeding 70%, and authority coefficients surpassing 0.7 in both rounds. The final iteration of the variable set includes 9 contextual variables, 2 physiological variables, and 5 behavioral variables.   Conclusion: Neonatal pain response variable set developed in this study is scientific, comprehensive, and multidimensional, aligning with the characteristics of neonatal pain response and clinically applicable. The inclusion of contextual variables enhances the ability to confront the complexity of clinical environments and individual differences. It can provide a practical and theoretical basis for clinical research on neonatal pain assessment. What is Known: • Neonatal pain assessment relies on scales used by healthcare professionals currently. But there is no "gold standard" for neonatal pain assessment. • While over 40 neonatal pain assessment scales have been published, owing to a lack of consensus and standardized metrics, there are more than 100 assessment indicators with varying descriptors and quality differences. Most of scales overlook the clinical environment complexity individual differences in pain responses, diminishing the accuracy and applicability. What is New: • In addition to the commonly used physiological and behavioral variables in the scales, we have incorporated contextual variables to better address the complexity of clinical environments and individual differences in pain responses. • Through an evidence-based approach, developed a neonatal pain response variable set comprising 9 contextual variables, 2 physiological variables, and 5 behavioral variables.

Experiences and perspectives of healthcare professionals, patients and caregivers toward the serious illness conversation guide: protocol for a qualitative meta-synthesis.

INTRODUCTION: Exploring the experiences and perspectives of healthcare professionals, patients and caregivers toward serious illness conversations based on the Serious Illness Care Program is vital for improving communication with patients who are seriously ill, as has been shown in previous studies. However, few studies have carried out a systematic review to examine common themes, strengthen conclusions and identify gaps in the literature, the findings of which could help steer further research, policies and practice to improve more timely and person-centred conversations about the values and priorities of patients with serious illnesses. The objective of this qualitative meta-synthesis is to explore how healthcare professionals, patients and caregivers described their own experiences of the processes of serious illness communication through a secondary analysis of published qualitative data. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Meta-aggregation will be used to conduct a systematic review of qualitative studies. We conducted an initial search on 10 October 2023; papers published in English will be searched using electronic databases, including PubMed (MEDLINE), Web of Science, Embase, Ovid and CINAHL. Studies that satisfy the eligibility criteria will be evaluated for methodological quality using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research. The meta-aggregative review will consist of the following: (1) extraction of findings of all included studies; (2) categorisation of the findings, with at least two findings per category; and (3) synthesis of one or more findings from at least two categories. Study eligibility screening, data extraction, analysis and JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research assessments will be undertaken independently by two authors. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Secondary data analysis of published literature does not require ethical approval. The results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and presented in conference papers and elsewhere. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022330859.