ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Development and psychometric evaluation of a tool to measure pain-management competency of surgical nurses.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Postoperative pain is a common symptom in surgical patients. Effective postoperative pain management can facilitate quick recovery of patients and enhance their comfort. Nurses' pain-management competency is crucial for ensuring the effective implementation of postoperative pain management; however, there is no effective tool to evaluate competency. In this study, we developed and validated the Surgical Nurses' Pain-Management Competency (SNPMC) tool for assessing surgical nurses' competency in pain management and evaluated competency levels and associated factors among Chinese surgical nurses. Methods: This study comprised two phases. (a) Measurement tool development, where items were generated through literature review and interviews, refined by expert discussions and two rounds of Delphi consultations, and finalized using the analytic hierarchy process. (b) Measurement validation and application, which evaluated content validity, construct validity, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability of the SNPMC. Using a multistage, geographically stratified convenience sampling strategy, 1,885 surgical nurses were surveyed from 48 hospitals across 15 regions representing the eastern, central, and western economic regions of China. Results: The final instrument included 78 items across seven dimensions: routine pain assessment, assessment and management of movement-evoked and unexpected pain, pharmacological pain management, patient-controlled analgesia management, non-pharmacological pain management, pain education, and professional development. The final SNPMC demonstrated excellent psychometric properties. Internal consistency was high (corrected item-total correlations: 0.672-0.847). Exploratory factor analysis supported the seven-dimensional structure (loadings ≥0.40). Content validity was strong (item-level content validity index: 0.80-1.00; scale-level content validity index: 0.98). The test-retest reliability over 14 days indicated strong stability. Chinese surgical nurses exhibited moderate to high levels of pain-management competency. Factors associated with competency included economic region, age, professional title, department, years of experience, education level, prior pain-management training, and prior pain management continuing education. Conclusion: The SNPMC effectively evaluates surgical nurses' pain-management competencies, highlighting the current competency levels and its contributing factors.
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.