Search

Pain catastrophizing is understood as a negative cognitive and emotional response to pain. Researchers, advocates and patients have reported stigmatizing effects of the term in clinical settings and the media. We conducted an international study to investigate patient perspectives on the term pain catastrophizing. Open-ended electronic patient and caregiver proxy surveys were promoted internationally by collaborator stakeholders and through social media. 3,521 surveys were received from 47 countries (77.3% from the U.S.). The sample was mainly female (82.1%), with a mean age of 41.62 (SD 12.03) years; 95% reported ongoing pain and pain duration > 10 years (68.4%). Forty-five percent (n = 1,295) had heard of the term pain catastrophizing; 12% (n = 349) reported being described as a 'pain catastrophizer' by a clinician with associated high levels of feeling blamed, judged, and dismissed. We present qualitative thematic data analytics for responses to open-ended questions, with 32% of responses highlighting the problematic nature of the term. We present the patients' perspective on the term pain catastrophizing, its material effect on clinical experiences, and associations with negative gender stereotypes. Use of patient-centered terminology may be important for favorably shaping the social context of patients' experience of pain and pain care. PERSPECTIVE: Our international patient survey found that 45% had heard of the term pain catastrophizing, about one-third spontaneously rated the term as problematic, and 12% reported the term was applied to them with most stating this was a negative experience. Clinician education on patient-centered terminology may improve care and reduce stigma., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The goal of this study was to identify a limited set of pain indicators that were most predicive of physical pain. We began with 140 items culled from existing pain observation tools and used a modified Delphi approach followed by statistical analyses to reduce the item pool., Methods: Through the Delphi Method, we created a candidate item set of behavioral indicators. Next, trained staff observed nursing home residents and rated the items on scales of behavior intensity and frequency. We evaluated associations among the items and expert clinicians' assessment of pain intensity., Setting: Four government-owned nursing homes and 12 community nursing homes in Alabama and Southeastern Pennsylvania., Participants: Ninety-five residents (mean age = 84.9 years) with moderate to severe cognitive impairment., Results: Using the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator model, we identified seven items that best predicted clinicians' evaluations of pain intensity. These items were rigid/stiff body or body parts, bracing, complaining, expressive eyes, grimacing, frowning, and sighing. We also found that a model based on ratings of frequency of behaviors did not have better predictive ability than a model based on ratings of intensity of behaviors., Conclusions: We used two complementary approaches-expert opinion and statistical analysis-to reduce a large pool of behavioral indicators to a parsimonious set of items to predict pain intensity in persons with dementia. Future studies are needed to examine the psychometric properties of this scale, which is called the Pain Intensity Measure for Persons with Dementia., (2018 American Academy of Pain Medicine. This work is written by US Government employees and is in the public domain in the US.)

Purpose: The study purposes were to mathematically link scores of the Brief Pain Inventory Pain Interference Subscale and the Short Form-36 Bodily Pain Subscale (legacy pain interference measures) to the NIH Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS(®)) Pain Interference (PROMIS-PI) metric and evaluate results., Methods: Linking was accomplished using both equipercentile and item response theory (IRT) methods. Item parameters for legacy items were estimated on the PROMIS-PI metric to allow for pattern scoring. Crosswalk tables also were developed that associated raw scores (summed or average) on legacy measures to PROMIS-PI scores. For each linking strategy, participants' actual PROMIS-PI scores were compared to those predicted based on their legacy scores. To assess the impact of different sample sizes, we conducted random resampling with replacement across 10,000 replications with sample sizes of n = 25, 50, and 75., Results: Analyses supported the assumption that all three scales were measuring similar constructs. IRT methods produced marginally better results than equipercentile linking. Accuracy of the links was substantially affected by sample size., Conclusions: The linking tools (crosswalks and item parameter estimates) developed in this study are robust methods for estimating the PROMIS-PI scores of samples based on legacy measures. We recommend using pattern scoring for users who have the necessary software and score crosswalks for those who do not.

The Army Pain Management Task Force was charged with recommending pain management strategies for Army Medical Command that would optimize quality of life for patients living with acute and chronic pain. Among their recommendations was the development of the Pain Assessment Screening Tool and Outcomes Registry (PASTOR). In order to develop this tool, the Pain Management Task Force leveraged the NIH's investment in building the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS(®)). The two foci of PASTOR are to enhance the clinical encounter and provide data for comprehensive evaluations of treatment effectiveness. The potential of such information for the future of clinical management is described.

Objectives: To describe rates of pain and pain interference in a large sample of adults aging with long-standing physical disabilities, relative to a normative US population sample., Methods: Self-report survey data was collected for a sample of 1877 individuals with spinal cord injury, neuromuscular disease, postpolio syndrome, or multiple sclerosis. Rates of pain severity and pain interference in these samples were then compared with those taken from a large normative sample (>20,000) collected through the NIH Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS)., Results: Individuals with long-standing physical disabilities reported higher levels of pain and pain interference across the lifespan as compared with individuals in the normative sample. In general, individuals with disability did not experience an age-related decrease in pain and pain impact in contrast to those in the normative sample. For 3 disability groups (neuromuscular disease, postpolio syndrome, and multiple sclerosis), pain interference remained elevated and significantly higher than national norms in the "postretirement" period (ie, age 65 to 74)., Discussion: Results from this study provide a large scale data on prevalence rates of pain and pain interference in this population. Findings underscore the prevalence and impact of pain in persons with disabilities and suggest that individuals with disability may not experience the same degree of decrease in pain interference in later life that is typical of the US population. Those aging with disability may be especially at risk for pain-related impairment in later life.

Purpose: The assessment of pain sensation and quality is a key component in understanding the experience of individuals with chronic pain. This study evaluated the factor structure of the patient-reported outcome measurement information system (PROMIS) pain quality item bank., Methods: As part of the PROMIS project, we developed a pool of 37 pain quality items, based on a review of existing pain questionnaires and development of new items. A web-based survey was designed and completed by 845 members of the general population and 967 individuals with different types of chronic pain. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted on a random split-half sample of the data to examine the factor structure of the 37 PROMIS pain quality items in the general population and in a chronic pain sample. A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted in the holdout sample., Results: The EFA of the pain quality items resulted in comparable six-factor solutions for the general and chronic pain samples: (1) pulling/tugging pain; (2) tingling/numbness pain; (3) sharp/stabbing pain; (4) dull/aching pain; (5) pounding/pulsing pain; and (6) affective pain. The confirmatory factor analysis in the holdout sample supported this factor structure., Conclusions: Further research is needed to evaluate the psychometric characteristics of the derived scales based on their factor scores.

Pain behaviors that are maintained beyond the acute stage after injury can contribute to subsequent psychosocial and physical disability. Critical to the study of pain behaviors is the availability of psychometrically sound pain behavior measures. In this study we developed a self-report measure of pain behaviors, the Pain Behaviors Self Report (PaB-SR). PaB-SR scores were developed using item response theory and evaluated using a rigorous, multiple-witness approach to validity testing. Participants included 661 survey participants with chronic pain and with multiple sclerosis, back pain, or arthritis; 618 survey participants who were significant others of a chronic pain participant; and 86 participants in a videotaped pain behavior observation protocol. Scores on the PaB-SR were found to be measurement invariant with respect to clinical condition. PaB-SR scores, observer reports, and the videotaped protocol yielded distinct, but convergent views of pain behavior, supporting the validity of the new measure. The PaB-SR is expected to be of substantial utility to researchers wishing to explore the relationship between pain behaviors and constructs such as pain intensity, pain interference, and disability., (Copyright © 2013 International Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Context: Pain is a common and complex experience for individuals who live with multiple sclerosis (MS) and it interferes with physical, psychological, and social function. A valid and reliable tool for quantifying observed pain behaviors in MS is critical to understand how pain behaviors contribute to pain-related disability in this clinical population., Objectives: To evaluate the reliability and validity of a pain behavioral observation protocol in individuals who have MS., Methods: Community-dwelling volunteers with MS (N=30), back pain (N=5), or arthritis (N=8) were recruited based on clinician referrals, advertisements, fliers, web postings, and participation in previous research. Participants completed the measures of pain severity, pain interference, and self-reported pain behaviors and were videotaped doing typical activities (e.g., walking and sitting). Two coders independently recorded frequencies of pain behaviors by category (e.g., guarding and bracing) and interrater reliability statistics were calculated. Naïve observers reviewed videotapes of individuals with MS and rated their pain. The Spearman's correlations were calculated between pain behavior frequencies and self-reported pain and pain ratings by naïve observers., Results: Interrater reliability estimates indicated the reliability of pain codes in the MS sample. Kappa coefficients ranged from moderate (sighing=0.40) to substantial agreements (guarding=0.83). These values were comparable with those obtained in the combined back pain and arthritis sample. Concurrent validity was supported by correlations with self-reported pain (0.46-0.53) and with self-reports of pain behaviors (0.58). Construct validity was supported by a finding of 0.87 correlation between total pain behaviors observed by coders and mean pain ratings by naïve observers., Conclusion: Results support the use of the pain behavior observation protocol for assessing pain behaviors of individuals with MS. Valid assessments of pain behaviors of individuals with MS could lead to creative interventions in the management of chronic pain in this population., (Copyright © 2013 U.S. Cancer Pain Relief Committee. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: This study examined the measurement invariance of responses to the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) pain interference (PI) item bank. The original PROMIS calibration sample (Wave I) was augmented with a sample of persons recruited from the American Chronic Pain Association (ACPA) to increase the number of participants reporting higher levels of pain. Establishing measurement invariance of an item bank is essential for the valid interpretation of group differences in the latent concept being measured., Methods: Multi-group confirmatory factor analysis (MG-CFA) was used to evaluate successive levels of measurement invariance: configural, metric, and scalar invariance., Results: Support was found for configural and metric invariance of the PROMIS-PI, but not for scalar invariance., Conclusions and Recommendations: Based on our results of MG-CFA, we recommend retaining the original parameter estimates obtained by combining the community sample of Wave I and ACPA participants. Future studies should extend this study by examining measurement equivalence in an item response theory framework such as differential item functioning analysis.

Objective: Pain is an important component of health and function, and chronic pain can be a problem in its own right. The purpose of this report is to review the considerations surrounding pain measurement in the NIH Toolbox, as well as to describe the measurement tools that were adopted for inclusion in the NIH Toolbox assessment battery., Methods: Instruments to measure pain in the NIH Toolbox were selected on the basis of scholarly input from a diverse group of experts, as well as review of existing instruments, which include verbal rating scales, numerical rating scales, and graphical scales., Results: Brief self-report measures of pain intensity and pain interference were selected for inclusion in the core NIH Toolbox for use with adults. A 0 to 10 numerical rating scale was recommended for measuring pain intensity, and a 6-item Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) short form for measuring pain interference. The 8-item PROMIS Pediatric Pain Interference measure was recommended as a supplemental measure. No specific measure was recommended for measuring pain intensity in children., Conclusions: Core and supplemental measures were recommended for the NIH Toolbox. Additional measures were reviewed for investigators who seek tools for measuring pain intensity in pediatric samples.

This paper describes the psychometric properties of the PROMIS-pain interference (PROMIS-PI) bank. An initial candidate item pool (n=644) was developed and evaluated based on the review of existing instruments, interviews with patients, and consultation with pain experts. From this pool, a candidate item bank of 56 items was selected and responses to the items were collected from large community and clinical samples. A total of 14,848 participants responded to all or a subset of candidate items. The responses were calibrated using an item response theory (IRT) model. A final 41-item bank was evaluated with respect to IRT assumptions, model fit, differential item function (DIF), precision, and construct and concurrent validity. Items of the revised bank had good fit to the IRT model (CFI and NNFI/TLI ranged from 0.974 to 0.997), and the data were strongly unidimensional (e.g., ratio of first and second eigenvalue=35). Nine items exhibited statistically significant DIF. However, adjusting for DIF had little practical impact on score estimates and the items were retained without modifying scoring. Scores provided substantial information across levels of pain; for scores in the T-score range 50-80, the reliability was equivalent to 0.96-0.99. Patterns of correlations with other health outcomes supported the construct validity of the item bank. The scores discriminated among persons with different numbers of chronic conditions, disabling conditions, levels of self-reported health, and pain intensity (p<0.0001). The results indicated that the PROMIS-PI items constitute a psychometrically sound bank. Computerized adaptive testing and short forms are available., (Copyright 2010 International Association for the Study of Pain. All rights reserved.)

The measurement of pain behavior is a key component of the assessment of persons with chronic pain; however, few self-reported pain behavior instruments have been developed. We developed a pain behavior item bank as part of the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS). For the Wave I testing, because of the large number of PROMIS items, a complex sampling approach was used where participants were randomly assigned to either respond to two full-item banks or to multiple 7-item blocks of items. A web-based survey was designed and completed by 15,528 members of the general population and 967 individuals with different types of chronic pain. Item response theory (IRT) analysis models were used to evaluate item characteristics and to scale both items and individuals on the pain behavior domain. The pain behavior item bank demonstrated good fit to a unidimensional model (Comparative Fit Index = 0.94). Several iterations of IRT analyses resulted in a final 39-item pain behavior bank, and different IRT models were fit to the total sample and to those participants who experienced some pain. The results indicated that these items demonstrated good coverage of the pain behavior construct. Pain behavior scores were strongly related to pain intensity and moderately related to self-reported general health status. Mean pain behavior scores varied significantly by groups based on pain severity and general health status. The PROMIS pain behavior item bank can be used to develop static short-form and dynamic measures of pain behavior for clinical studies.

Purpose: The primary objective of this study was to inform the development of measures of pain impact appropriate for all respondents, including homeless individuals, so that they can be used in clinical research and practice. The secondary objective was to increase understanding about the unique experience of homeless people with pain., Methods: Seventeen homeless individuals with chronic health conditions (often associated with pain) participated in cognitive interviews to test the functioning of 56 pain measurement items and provided information about their experience living with and accessing treatment for pain., Results: The most common problems identified with items were that they lacked clarity or were irrelevant in the context of homelessness. Items that were unclear, irrelevant and/or had other identified problems made it difficult for participants to respond. Participants also described multiple ways in which their pain was exacerbated by conditions of homelessness and identified barriers to accessing appropriate treatment., Conclusions: Results suggested that the majority of items were problematic for the homeless and require substantial modifications to make the pain impact bank relevant to this population. Additional recommendations include involving homeless in future item bank development, conducting research on the topic of pain and homelessness, and using cognitive interviewing in other types of health disparities research.

BackgroundThere is a need for valid self-report measures of core health-related quality of life (HRQoL) domains.ObjectiveTo derive brief, reliable and valid health profile measures from the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® (PROMIS®) item banks.MethodsLiterature review, investigator consensus process, item response theory (IRT) analysis, and expert review of scaling results from multiple PROMIS data sets. We developed 3 profile measures ranging in length from 29 to 57 questions. These profiles assess important HRQoL domains with highly informative subsets of items from respective item banks and yield reliable information across mild-to-severe levels of HRQoL experiences. Each instrument assesses the domains of pain interference, fatigue, depression, anxiety, sleep disturbance, physical function, and social function using 4-, 6-, and 8-item short forms for each domain, and an average pain intensity domain score, using a 0-10 numeric rating scale.ResultsWith few exceptions, all domain short forms within the profile measures were highly reliable across at least 3 standard deviation (30 T-score) units and were strongly correlated with the full bank scores. Construct validity with ratings of general health and quality of life was demonstrated. Information to inform statistical power for clinical and general population samples is also provided.ConclusionsAlthough these profile measures have been used widely, with summary scoring routines published, description of their development, reliability, and initial validity has not been published until this article. Further evaluation of these measures and clinical applications are encouraged.

Objectives Using patient-reported outcomes to inform clinical decision-making depends on knowing how to interpret scores. Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System® (PROMIS®) instruments are increasingly used in rheumatology research and care, but there is little information available to guide interpretation of scores. We sought to identify thresholds and meaningful change for PROMIS Pain Interference and Fatigue scores from the perspective of RA patients and clinicians. Methods We developed patient vignettes using the PROMIS item banks representing a continuum of Pain Interference and Fatigue levels. During a series of face-to-face 'bookmarking' sessions, patients and clinicians identified thresholds for mild, moderate and severe levels of symptoms and identified change deemed meaningful for making treatment decisions. Results In general, patients selected higher cut points to demarcate thresholds than clinicians. Patients and clinicians generally identified changes of 5–10 points as representing meaningful change. The thresholds and meaningful change scores of patients were grounded in their lived experiences having RA, approach to self-management, and the impacts on function, roles and social participation. Conclusion Results offer new information about how both patients and clinicians view RA symptoms and functional impacts. Results suggest that patients and providers may use different strategies to define and interpret RA symptoms, and select different thresholds when describing symptoms as mild, moderate or severe. The magnitude of symptom change selected by patients and clinicians as being clinically meaningful in interpreting treatment efficacy and loss of response may be greater than levels determined by external anchor and statistical methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To date, there is no validated measure for pain catastrophizing at the daily level. The Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) is widely used to measure trait pain catastrophizing. We sought to develop and validate a brief, daily version of the PCS for use in daily diary studies to facilitate research on mechanisms of catastrophizing treatment, individual differences in self-regulation, and to reveal the nuanced relationships between catastrophizing, correlates, and pain outcomes. After adapting the PCS for daily use, we evaluated the resulting 14 items using 3 rounds of cognitive interviews with 30 adults with chronic pain. We refined and tested the final daily PCS in 3 independent, prospective, cross-sectional, observational validation studies conducted in a combined total of 519 adults with chronic pain who completed online measures daily for 14 consecutive days. For study 1 (N = 131), exploratory factor analysis revealed adequate fit and-unexpectedly-unidimensionality for item responses to the daily PCS. Study 2 (N = 177) correlations indicated adequate association with related constructs (anger, anxiety, pain intensity, depression). Similarly, results for study 3 (N = 211) revealed expected correlations for daily PCS and measures of daily constructs including physical activity, sleep, energy level, and positive affect. Results from complex/multilevel confirmatory factor analysis confirmed good fit to a unidimensional model. Scores on the daily PCS were statistically comparable with and more parsimonious than the full 14-item version. Next steps include evaluation of score validity in populations with medical diagnoses, greater demographic diversity, and in patients with acute pain.Perspective: This article describes the development and validation of a daily PCS. This daily measure may facilitate research that aims to characterize pain mechanisms, individual differences in self-regulation, adaptation, and nuanced relationships between catastrophizing, correlates, and pain outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Neuropathic pain (NP) is a consequence of many chronic conditions. This study aimed to develop an unidimensional NP scale with scores that represent levels of NP and distinguish between individuals with NP and non-NP conditions.Methods: A candidate item pool of 42 pain quality descriptors was administered to participants with osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, diabetic neuropathy, and cancer chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy. A subset of pain quality descriptors (items) that best distinguished between participants with and those without NP conditions were identified. Dimensionality of pain descriptors was evaluated in a development sample and cross-validated in a holdout sample. Item responses were calibrated using an item response theory model, and scores were generated on a T-score metric. NP scale scores were evaluated in terms of the reliability, validity, and ability to distinguish between participants with and without conditions typically associated with NP.Results: Of the 42 initial items, 5 were identified for the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Neuropathic Pain Quality Scale. T scores exhibited good discriminatory ability on the basis of receiver-operator characteristic analysis. Score thresholds that optimize sensitivity and specificity were identified. Construct, criterion, and discriminant validity, and reliability of scale scores were supported.Conclusions: The five-item Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS PQ-Neuro) Neuropathic Pain Quality Scale is a short and practical measure that can be used to identify patients more likely to have NP and to distinguish levels of NP. The data collected will support future research that targets other unidimensional pain quality domains (e.g., nociceptive pain). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Dutch-Flemish PROMIS Group translated the adult PROMIS Pain Interference item bank into Dutch-Flemish. The aims of the current study were to calibrate the parameters of these items using an item response theory (IRT) model, to evaluate the cross-cultural validity of the Dutch-Flemish translations compared to the original English items, and to evaluate their reliability and construct validity. The 40 items in the bank were completed by 1085 Dutch chronic pain patients. Before calibrating the items, IRT model assumptions were evaluated using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Items were calibrated using the graded response model (GRM), an IRT model appropriate for items with more than two response options. To evaluate cross-cultural validity, differential item functioning (DIF) for language (Dutch vs. English) was examined. Reliability was evaluated based on standard errors and Cronbach’s alpha. To evaluate construct validity correlations with scores on legacy instruments (e.g., the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Questionnaire) were calculated. Unidimensionality of the Dutch-Flemish PROMIS Pain Interference item bank was supported by CFA tests of model fit (CFI = 0.986, TLI = 0.986). Furthermore, the data fit the GRM and showed good coverage across the pain interference continuum (threshold-parameters range: -3.04 to 3.44). The Dutch-Flemish PROMIS Pain Interference item bank has good cross-cultural validity (only two out of 40 items showing DIF), good reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.98), and good construct validity (Pearson correlations between 0.62 and 0.75). A computer adaptive test (CAT) and Dutch-Flemish PROMIS short forms of the Dutch-Flemish PROMIS Pain Interference item bank can now be developed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article reports on a post hoc simulation of a computer adaptive administration of the items of a modified version of the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire. The objective of the study is to evaluate the effectiveness of adaptive administration of back pain-related disability items compared with a fixed 11-item short form. Computer adaptive test-based back pain related disability measure may be a valuable tool in clinical and research contexts.