IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/clnure/v30y2021i8p1290-1300.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of Postoperative Pain Management Outcomes in the United States and China

Author

Listed:
  • Hui Wang
  • Gwen D. Sherwood
  • Shuang Liang
  • Zhiyi Gong
  • Liying Ren
  • Huaping Liu
  • Iat Kio Van

Abstract

To compare pain management outcomes in postoperative patients from an American hospital and a Chinese hospital. A convenience sample of 244 patients in the United States and 268 patients in China with similar surgical sites completed the American Pain Society Patient Outcome Questionnaire-Revised (APS-POQ-R) and the Pain Management Index (PMI) was calculated on their first postoperative day. Patients in the United States reported a higher score on the “perception of pain management†subscale of the APS-POQ-R and a higher proportion of adequate treatment as measured by the PMI (85.2% vs. 39.0%, p  

Suggested Citation

  • Hui Wang & Gwen D. Sherwood & Shuang Liang & Zhiyi Gong & Liying Ren & Huaping Liu & Iat Kio Van, 2021. "Comparison of Postoperative Pain Management Outcomes in the United States and China," Clinical Nursing Research, , vol. 30(8), pages 1290-1300, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:clnure:v:30:y:2021:i:8:p:1290-1300
    DOI: 10.1177/10547738211012832
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/10547738211012832
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/10547738211012832?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:clnure:v:30:y:2021:i:8:p:1290-1300. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.