ArticleNursing in critical care2026
Nurses' Pain Assessment and Attitudes: A Qualitative Study in a Neurointensive Care Unit.
Article in Nursing in critical care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAs analgo-sedation gains prominence, a significant portion of adult ICU patients-including those in neurointensive care units (neuro-ICUs)-remain awake and conscious throughout their stay. Despite this, neuro-ICU patients frequently experience moderate to severe pain, highlighting the critical need for enhanced pain assessment.
aimThis study aimed to explore nurses' assessments and attitudes towards pain in critically ill patients in the neuro-ICU.
methodA qualitative, exploratory and inductive study was conducted, inspired by Ricoeur's phenomenological-hermeneutic approach. Data were gathered at a neuro-ICU in Copenhagen, Denmark via four focus group interviews and five semi-structured individual interviews with nurses. The Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research guided the reporting process.
findingsFour key themes were identified in the qualitative analysis: Subjective pain perception, exclusive nursing responsibility for pain assessment, continuity for interpreting lived pain and attitudes undermining pain care in the neuro-ICU. Nurses viewed neuro-ICU patients with brain injury as unable to self-assess pain due to cognitive and communication deficits, irrespective of sedation level, leaving pain assessment dependent on the nurses' interpretive judgement.
conclusionNurses in neuro-ICU found pain assessment challenging due to impaired communication and fluctuations in consciousness, independent of sedation level. Nurses' dependence on physical parameters and tacit interpretive judgement placed clinical decision-making in their hands when medical input was absent. Under these conditions, continuity of care became vital for interpreting patients' subjective pain cues. This need for continuity was further amplified by nurses' perception of holding sole responsibility for pain assessment in the neuro-ICU. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: The findings emphasize the need for structured pain assessment approaches that combine standardized tools with nurses clinical judgment in analgo-sedated neuro-ICU patients. Continuity of care appears essential for recognizing individual pain expressions and supporting consistent clinical decision-making. Stronger interdisciplinary collaboration may reduce the burden on nurses and improve shared responsibility for pain management. Reflective practice and education are needed to address implicit biases, particularly toward patients with substance use histories. Together, these initiatives may reduce variation in analgo-sedation practices and better protect patient comfort.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.