Development and Initial Validation of the PEG, a Three-item Scale Assessing Pain Intensity and Interference

被引:493
作者
Krebs, Erin E. [1 ,2 ,7 ]
Lorenz, Karl A. [4 ,5 ,6 ]
Bair, Matthew J. [1 ,2 ,7 ]
Damush, Teresa M. [1 ,2 ,7 ]
Wu, Jingwei [2 ]
Sutherland, Jason M. [3 ]
Asch, Steven M. [4 ,5 ,6 ]
Kroenke, Kurt [1 ,2 ,7 ]
机构
[1] Regenstrief Inst Inc, Indianapolis, IN USA
[2] Indiana Univ, Sch Med, Dept Med, Indianapolis, IN USA
[3] Dartmouth Coll, Hitchcock Med Ctr, Dartmouth Med Sch, Dartmouth Inst Hlth Policy & Clin Practice, Hanover, NH 03756 USA
[4] VA Greater Angeles Healthcare Syst, Los Angeles, CA USA
[5] RAND Corp, Santa Monica, CA USA
[6] Univ Calif Los Angeles, David Geffen Sch Med, Los Angeles, CA 90095 USA
[7] Roudebush VAMC, Ctr Implementing Evidence Based Practice, Indianapolis, IN 46202 USA
关键词
pain; measurement; primary care; LOW-BACK-PAIN; PRIMARY-CARE; IMMPACT RECOMMENDATIONS; CLINICAL-TRIALS; HEALTH-STATUS; SHORT-FORM; VALIDITY; OUTCOMES; RESPONSIVENESS; RELIABILITY;
D O I
10.1007/s11606-009-0981-1
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Inadequate pain assessment is a barrier to appropriate pain management, but single-item "pain screening" provides limited information about chronic pain. Multidimensional pain measures such as the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) are widely used in pain specialty and research settings, but are impractical for primary care. A brief and straightforward multidimensional pain measure could potentially improve initial assessment and follow-up of chronic pain in primary care. To develop an ultra-brief pain measure derived from the BPI. Development of a shortened three-item pain measure and initial assessment of its reliability, validity, and responsiveness. We used data from 1) a longitudinal study of 500 primary care patients with chronic pain and 2) a cross-sectional study of 646 veterans recruited from ambulatory care. Selected items assess average pain intensity (P), interference with enjoyment of life (E), and interference with general activity (G). Reliability of the three-item scale (PEG) was alpha = 0.73 and 0.89 in the two study samples. Overall, construct validity of the PEG was good for various pain-specific measures (r = 0.60-0.89 in Study 1 and r = 0.77-0.95 in Study 2), and comparable to that of the BPI. The PEG was sensitive to change and differentiated between patients with and without pain improvement at 6 months. We provide strong initial evidence for reliability, construct validity, and responsiveness of the PEG among primary care and other ambulatory clinic patients. The PEG may be a practical and useful tool to improve assessment and monitoring of chronic pain in primary care.
引用
收藏
页码:733 / 738
页数:6
相关论文
共 41 条
  • [1] [Anonymous], 1994, AHCPR PUBLICATION
  • [2] [Anonymous], 1991, EFFECT CANC QUALITY
  • [3] Depression and pain comorbidity - A literature review
    Bair, MJ
    Robinson, RL
    Katon, W
    Kroenke, K
    [J]. ARCHIVES OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2003, 163 (20) : 2433 - 2445
  • [4] Evaluating changes in health status: Reliability and responsiveness of five generic health status measures in workers with musculoskeletal disorders
    Beaton, DE
    HoggJohnson, S
    Bombardier, C
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 1997, 50 (01) : 79 - 93
  • [5] BRODERICK JE, PAIN IN PRESS
  • [6] Development and validation of a functional morbidity index to predict mortality in community-dwelling elders
    Carey, EC
    Walter, LC
    Lindquist, K
    Covinsky, KE
    [J]. JOURNAL OF GENERAL INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2004, 19 (10) : 1027 - U31
  • [7] CARR DB, 1992, AHCPR PUB
  • [8] Cleeland C. S., 1994, Annals Academy of Medicine Singapore, V23, P129
  • [9] Dimensions of the impact of cancer pain in a four country sample: New information from multidimensional scaling
    Cleeland, CS
    Nakamura, Y
    Mendoza, TR
    Edwards, KR
    Douglas, J
    Serlin, RC
    [J]. PAIN, 1996, 67 (2-3) : 267 - 273
  • [10] Methodological approaches to shortening composite measurement scales
    Coste, J
    Guillemin, F
    Pouchot, J
    Fermanian, J
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 1997, 50 (03) : 247 - 252