Responsiveness of five condition-specific and generic outcome assessment instruments for chronic pain

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Changes of health and quality-of-life in chronic conditions are mostly small and require specific and sensitive instruments. The aim of this study was to determine and compare responsiveness, i.e. the sensitivity to change of five ou...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Verra Martin L, Angst Felix, Lehmann Susanne, Aeschlimann André
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2008-04-01
Series:BMC Medical Research Methodology
Online Access:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/8/26
id doaj-1dc1d1fe002e4c0dac66dc5efd790ef1
record_format Article
spelling doaj-1dc1d1fe002e4c0dac66dc5efd790ef12020-11-24T22:00:05ZengBMCBMC Medical Research Methodology1471-22882008-04-01812610.1186/1471-2288-8-26Responsiveness of five condition-specific and generic outcome assessment instruments for chronic painVerra Martin LAngst FelixLehmann SusanneAeschlimann André<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Changes of health and quality-of-life in chronic conditions are mostly small and require specific and sensitive instruments. The aim of this study was to determine and compare responsiveness, i.e. the sensitivity to change of five outcome instruments for effect measurement in chronic pain.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In a prospective cohort study, 273 chronic pain patients were assessed on the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) for pain, the Short Form 36 (SF-36), the Multidimensional Pain Inventory (MPI), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and the Coping Strategies Questionnaire (CSQ). Responsiveness was quantified by effect size (ES) and standardized response mean (SRM) before and after a four week in-patient interdisciplinary pain program and compared by the modified Jacknife test.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The MPI measured pain more responsively than the SF-36 (ES: 0.85 vs 0.72, p = 0.053; SRM: 0.72 vs 0.60, p = 0.027) and the pain NRS (ES: 0.85 vs 0.62, p < 0.001; SRM: 0.72 vs 0.57, p = 0.001). Similar results were found for the dimensions of role and social interference with pain. Comparison in function was limited due to divergent constructs. The responsiveness of the MPI and the SF-36 was equal for affective health but both were better than the HADS (e.g. MPI vs HADS depression: ES: 0.61 vs 0.43, p = 0.001; SF-36 vs HADS depression: ES: 0.54 vs 0.43, p = 0.004). In the "ability to control pain" coping dimension, the MPI was more responsive than the CSQ (ES: 0.46 vs 0.30, p = 0.011).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The MPI was most responsive in all comparable domains followed by the SF-36. The pain-specific MPI and the generic SF-36 can be recommended for comprehensive and specific bio-psycho-social effect measurement of health and quality-of-life in chronic pain.</p> http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/8/26
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Verra Martin L
Angst Felix
Lehmann Susanne
Aeschlimann André
spellingShingle Verra Martin L
Angst Felix
Lehmann Susanne
Aeschlimann André
Responsiveness of five condition-specific and generic outcome assessment instruments for chronic pain
BMC Medical Research Methodology
author_facet Verra Martin L
Angst Felix
Lehmann Susanne
Aeschlimann André
author_sort Verra Martin L
title Responsiveness of five condition-specific and generic outcome assessment instruments for chronic pain
title_short Responsiveness of five condition-specific and generic outcome assessment instruments for chronic pain
title_full Responsiveness of five condition-specific and generic outcome assessment instruments for chronic pain
title_fullStr Responsiveness of five condition-specific and generic outcome assessment instruments for chronic pain
title_full_unstemmed Responsiveness of five condition-specific and generic outcome assessment instruments for chronic pain
title_sort responsiveness of five condition-specific and generic outcome assessment instruments for chronic pain
publisher BMC
series BMC Medical Research Methodology
issn 1471-2288
publishDate 2008-04-01
description <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Changes of health and quality-of-life in chronic conditions are mostly small and require specific and sensitive instruments. The aim of this study was to determine and compare responsiveness, i.e. the sensitivity to change of five outcome instruments for effect measurement in chronic pain.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In a prospective cohort study, 273 chronic pain patients were assessed on the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) for pain, the Short Form 36 (SF-36), the Multidimensional Pain Inventory (MPI), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and the Coping Strategies Questionnaire (CSQ). Responsiveness was quantified by effect size (ES) and standardized response mean (SRM) before and after a four week in-patient interdisciplinary pain program and compared by the modified Jacknife test.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The MPI measured pain more responsively than the SF-36 (ES: 0.85 vs 0.72, p = 0.053; SRM: 0.72 vs 0.60, p = 0.027) and the pain NRS (ES: 0.85 vs 0.62, p < 0.001; SRM: 0.72 vs 0.57, p = 0.001). Similar results were found for the dimensions of role and social interference with pain. Comparison in function was limited due to divergent constructs. The responsiveness of the MPI and the SF-36 was equal for affective health but both were better than the HADS (e.g. MPI vs HADS depression: ES: 0.61 vs 0.43, p = 0.001; SF-36 vs HADS depression: ES: 0.54 vs 0.43, p = 0.004). In the "ability to control pain" coping dimension, the MPI was more responsive than the CSQ (ES: 0.46 vs 0.30, p = 0.011).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The MPI was most responsive in all comparable domains followed by the SF-36. The pain-specific MPI and the generic SF-36 can be recommended for comprehensive and specific bio-psycho-social effect measurement of health and quality-of-life in chronic pain.</p>
url http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/8/26
work_keys_str_mv AT verramartinl responsivenessoffiveconditionspecificandgenericoutcomeassessmentinstrumentsforchronicpain
AT angstfelix responsivenessoffiveconditionspecificandgenericoutcomeassessmentinstrumentsforchronicpain
AT lehmannsusanne responsivenessoffiveconditionspecificandgenericoutcomeassessmentinstrumentsforchronicpain
AT aeschlimannandre responsivenessoffiveconditionspecificandgenericoutcomeassessmentinstrumentsforchronicpain
_version_ 1725845460983218176