Patient reported outcome measures of pain intensity: Do they tell us what we need to know?

Patient reported outcome measures of pain intensity: Do they tell us what we need to know? AbstractObjectiveTo determine the relationship between chronic pain patients’ responses to self-report measures of pain intensity, and self-reported strategies when completing such measures.ParticipantsAmbulatory outpatients suffering from one of the following chronic pain conditions: painful HIV neuropathy, painful diabetic neuropathy, chronic Low-Back Pain.MethodAs part of a previously reported study using qualitative methods, participants completed standard pain intensity questionnaires as well as a measure of pain related disturbances in activities of daily living. In the previous study, participants’ responses during a focus group were then used to identify their strategies and beliefs about their approach to completing the questionnaires. Among the beliefs were: (1) difficulties averaging pain over different time periods (i.e., “what was your average pain during the last 24h” versus “what was your average pain during the last 2 weeks”); (2) difficulty in comparing pain from different etiologies; (3) difficulties in reporting sensations of pain in a manner unaffected by issues and situations secondary to the pain experience, such as difficulties in activities of daily living. In the present paper we use ANOVA (analysis of variance) and partial correlation to determine whether the qualitatively derived perceptions are reflected in the quantitative pain intensity scores.ResultsParticipants’ belief that it was difficult to “average” pain intensity over different time periods was supported. The data do not support their belief that pain intensity scores are affected by other factors: their specific pain diagnosis, and the extent to which pain interfered with their activities of daily living.Conclusions(1) Patients tend to report different levels of pain intensity when asked to report their pain over different periods; (2) insofar as it can be said to exist, the relationship between measures of intensity and interference with activities of daily living is minimal; (3) participants tend to report similar levels of pain intensity, irrespective of etiology.Implications(1) Chronic pain patients’ elicited beliefs and strategies concerning how they complete pain intensity questionnaires are sometimes, but not invariably, reflected in their responses to these measures. Thus, purely qualitative methodologies alone cannot provide completely reliable information and point to the need to use a “mixed methods” approach combining both qualitative and quantitative data; (2) the lack of association between pain intensity measures and interference with activities of daily living, as well as relative insensitivity to different etiologies underlines the problem in relying on pain intensity measures as the primary means of evaluating the success of a treatment, either for pain management or in clinical research. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Scandinavian Journal of Pain de Gruyter

Patient reported outcome measures of pain intensity: Do they tell us what we need to know?

Loading next page...
 
/lp/degruyter/patient-reported-outcome-measures-of-pain-intensity-do-they-tell-us-d0p7BpQXLV
Publisher
De Gruyter
Copyright
© 2015 Scandinavian Association for the Study of Pain
ISSN
1877-8860
eISSN
1877-8879
D.O.I.
10.1016/j.sjpain.2015.12.004
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

AbstractObjectiveTo determine the relationship between chronic pain patients’ responses to self-report measures of pain intensity, and self-reported strategies when completing such measures.ParticipantsAmbulatory outpatients suffering from one of the following chronic pain conditions: painful HIV neuropathy, painful diabetic neuropathy, chronic Low-Back Pain.MethodAs part of a previously reported study using qualitative methods, participants completed standard pain intensity questionnaires as well as a measure of pain related disturbances in activities of daily living. In the previous study, participants’ responses during a focus group were then used to identify their strategies and beliefs about their approach to completing the questionnaires. Among the beliefs were: (1) difficulties averaging pain over different time periods (i.e., “what was your average pain during the last 24h” versus “what was your average pain during the last 2 weeks”); (2) difficulty in comparing pain from different etiologies; (3) difficulties in reporting sensations of pain in a manner unaffected by issues and situations secondary to the pain experience, such as difficulties in activities of daily living. In the present paper we use ANOVA (analysis of variance) and partial correlation to determine whether the qualitatively derived perceptions are reflected in the quantitative pain intensity scores.ResultsParticipants’ belief that it was difficult to “average” pain intensity over different time periods was supported. The data do not support their belief that pain intensity scores are affected by other factors: their specific pain diagnosis, and the extent to which pain interfered with their activities of daily living.Conclusions(1) Patients tend to report different levels of pain intensity when asked to report their pain over different periods; (2) insofar as it can be said to exist, the relationship between measures of intensity and interference with activities of daily living is minimal; (3) participants tend to report similar levels of pain intensity, irrespective of etiology.Implications(1) Chronic pain patients’ elicited beliefs and strategies concerning how they complete pain intensity questionnaires are sometimes, but not invariably, reflected in their responses to these measures. Thus, purely qualitative methodologies alone cannot provide completely reliable information and point to the need to use a “mixed methods” approach combining both qualitative and quantitative data; (2) the lack of association between pain intensity measures and interference with activities of daily living, as well as relative insensitivity to different etiologies underlines the problem in relying on pain intensity measures as the primary means of evaluating the success of a treatment, either for pain management or in clinical research.

Journal

Scandinavian Journal of Painde Gruyter

Published: Dec 29, 2017

There are no references for this article.

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 12 million articles from more than
10,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Unlimited reading

Read as many articles as you need. Full articles with original layout, charts and figures. Read online, from anywhere.

Stay up to date

Keep up with your field with Personalized Recommendations and Follow Journals to get automatic updates.

Organize your research

It’s easy to organize your research with our built-in tools.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

Monthly Plan

  • Read unlimited articles
  • Personalized recommendations
  • No expiration
  • Print 20 pages per month
  • 20% off on PDF purchases
  • Organize your research
  • Get updates on your journals and topic searches

$49/month

Start Free Trial

14-day Free Trial

Best Deal — 39% off

Annual Plan

  • All the features of the Professional Plan, but for 39% off!
  • Billed annually
  • No expiration
  • For the normal price of 10 articles elsewhere, you get one full year of unlimited access to articles.

$588

$360/year

billed annually
Start Free Trial

14-day Free Trial