Cargando…
Mixed-methods development of a new patient-reported outcome instrument for chronic low back pain: part 2—The Patient Assessment for Low Back Pain–Impacts (PAL-I)
We describe qualitative and quantitative development and preliminary validation of the Patient Assessment for Low Back Pain–Impacts (PAL-I), a patient-reported outcome measure for use in chronic low back pain (cLBP) clinical trials. Concept elicitation and cognitive interviews (qualitative methods)...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Wolters Kluwer
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6155358/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29889120 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001309 |
_version_ | 1783357884492414976 |
---|---|
author | Bushnell, Donald M. Blum, Steven I. Liedgens, Hiltrud Martin, Mona L. Freynhagen, Rainer Wallace, Mark Argoff, Charles Eerdekens, Mariёlle Kok, Maurits Patrick, Donald L. |
author_facet | Bushnell, Donald M. Blum, Steven I. Liedgens, Hiltrud Martin, Mona L. Freynhagen, Rainer Wallace, Mark Argoff, Charles Eerdekens, Mariёlle Kok, Maurits Patrick, Donald L. |
author_sort | Bushnell, Donald M. |
collection | PubMed |
description | We describe qualitative and quantitative development and preliminary validation of the Patient Assessment for Low Back Pain–Impacts (PAL-I), a patient-reported outcome measure for use in chronic low back pain (cLBP) clinical trials. Concept elicitation and cognitive interviews (qualitative methods) were used to identify and refine symptom concepts. Classical test theory and Rasch measurement theory (quantitative methods) were used to evaluate item-level and scale-level performance of the PAL-I using an iterative approach between qualitative and quantitative methods. Patients with cLBP participated in concept elicitation interviews (N = 43), cognitive interviews (N = 38), and assessment of paper-to-electronic format equivalence (N = 8). A web-based sample of self-reported patients with cLBP participated in quantitative studies to evaluate preliminary (N = 598) and revised (n = 401) drafts and patients with physician-diagnosed cLBP (N = 45) participated in preliminary validation of the PAL-I. The instrument contained 9 items describing cLBP impacts (walking, sitting, standing, lifting, sleep, social activities, travelling, climbing, and body movements). Item-level performance, scale structure, and scoring seemed to be appropriate. One-week test–retest reproducibility was acceptable (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.88 [95% confidence interval, 0.78-0.94]). Convergent validity was demonstrated with PAL-I total score and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (Pearson correlation 0.82), MOS-36 Physical Functioning (−0.71), and MOS-36 Bodily Pain (−0.71). Individual item scores and total score discriminated between numeric rating scale tertile groups and painDETECT categories. Interpretation of paper and electronic administration modes was equivalent. The PAL-I demonstrated content validity and is potentially useful to assess treatment benefit in clinical trials of cLBP therapies. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6155358 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | Wolters Kluwer |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-61553582018-10-12 Mixed-methods development of a new patient-reported outcome instrument for chronic low back pain: part 2—The Patient Assessment for Low Back Pain–Impacts (PAL-I) Bushnell, Donald M. Blum, Steven I. Liedgens, Hiltrud Martin, Mona L. Freynhagen, Rainer Wallace, Mark Argoff, Charles Eerdekens, Mariёlle Kok, Maurits Patrick, Donald L. Pain Research Paper We describe qualitative and quantitative development and preliminary validation of the Patient Assessment for Low Back Pain–Impacts (PAL-I), a patient-reported outcome measure for use in chronic low back pain (cLBP) clinical trials. Concept elicitation and cognitive interviews (qualitative methods) were used to identify and refine symptom concepts. Classical test theory and Rasch measurement theory (quantitative methods) were used to evaluate item-level and scale-level performance of the PAL-I using an iterative approach between qualitative and quantitative methods. Patients with cLBP participated in concept elicitation interviews (N = 43), cognitive interviews (N = 38), and assessment of paper-to-electronic format equivalence (N = 8). A web-based sample of self-reported patients with cLBP participated in quantitative studies to evaluate preliminary (N = 598) and revised (n = 401) drafts and patients with physician-diagnosed cLBP (N = 45) participated in preliminary validation of the PAL-I. The instrument contained 9 items describing cLBP impacts (walking, sitting, standing, lifting, sleep, social activities, travelling, climbing, and body movements). Item-level performance, scale structure, and scoring seemed to be appropriate. One-week test–retest reproducibility was acceptable (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.88 [95% confidence interval, 0.78-0.94]). Convergent validity was demonstrated with PAL-I total score and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (Pearson correlation 0.82), MOS-36 Physical Functioning (−0.71), and MOS-36 Bodily Pain (−0.71). Individual item scores and total score discriminated between numeric rating scale tertile groups and painDETECT categories. Interpretation of paper and electronic administration modes was equivalent. The PAL-I demonstrated content validity and is potentially useful to assess treatment benefit in clinical trials of cLBP therapies. Wolters Kluwer 2018-10 2018-06-07 /pmc/articles/PMC6155358/ /pubmed/29889120 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001309 Text en Copyright © 2018 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the International Association for the Study of Pain. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND) (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) , where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal. |
spellingShingle | Research Paper Bushnell, Donald M. Blum, Steven I. Liedgens, Hiltrud Martin, Mona L. Freynhagen, Rainer Wallace, Mark Argoff, Charles Eerdekens, Mariёlle Kok, Maurits Patrick, Donald L. Mixed-methods development of a new patient-reported outcome instrument for chronic low back pain: part 2—The Patient Assessment for Low Back Pain–Impacts (PAL-I) |
title | Mixed-methods development of a new patient-reported outcome instrument for chronic low back pain: part 2—The Patient Assessment for Low Back Pain–Impacts (PAL-I) |
title_full | Mixed-methods development of a new patient-reported outcome instrument for chronic low back pain: part 2—The Patient Assessment for Low Back Pain–Impacts (PAL-I) |
title_fullStr | Mixed-methods development of a new patient-reported outcome instrument for chronic low back pain: part 2—The Patient Assessment for Low Back Pain–Impacts (PAL-I) |
title_full_unstemmed | Mixed-methods development of a new patient-reported outcome instrument for chronic low back pain: part 2—The Patient Assessment for Low Back Pain–Impacts (PAL-I) |
title_short | Mixed-methods development of a new patient-reported outcome instrument for chronic low back pain: part 2—The Patient Assessment for Low Back Pain–Impacts (PAL-I) |
title_sort | mixed-methods development of a new patient-reported outcome instrument for chronic low back pain: part 2—the patient assessment for low back pain–impacts (pal-i) |
topic | Research Paper |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6155358/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29889120 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/j.pain.0000000000001309 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT bushnelldonaldm mixedmethodsdevelopmentofanewpatientreportedoutcomeinstrumentforchroniclowbackpainpart2thepatientassessmentforlowbackpainimpactspali AT blumsteveni mixedmethodsdevelopmentofanewpatientreportedoutcomeinstrumentforchroniclowbackpainpart2thepatientassessmentforlowbackpainimpactspali AT liedgenshiltrud mixedmethodsdevelopmentofanewpatientreportedoutcomeinstrumentforchroniclowbackpainpart2thepatientassessmentforlowbackpainimpactspali AT martinmonal mixedmethodsdevelopmentofanewpatientreportedoutcomeinstrumentforchroniclowbackpainpart2thepatientassessmentforlowbackpainimpactspali AT freynhagenrainer mixedmethodsdevelopmentofanewpatientreportedoutcomeinstrumentforchroniclowbackpainpart2thepatientassessmentforlowbackpainimpactspali AT wallacemark mixedmethodsdevelopmentofanewpatientreportedoutcomeinstrumentforchroniclowbackpainpart2thepatientassessmentforlowbackpainimpactspali AT argoffcharles mixedmethodsdevelopmentofanewpatientreportedoutcomeinstrumentforchroniclowbackpainpart2thepatientassessmentforlowbackpainimpactspali AT eerdekensmariëlle mixedmethodsdevelopmentofanewpatientreportedoutcomeinstrumentforchroniclowbackpainpart2thepatientassessmentforlowbackpainimpactspali AT kokmaurits mixedmethodsdevelopmentofanewpatientreportedoutcomeinstrumentforchroniclowbackpainpart2thepatientassessmentforlowbackpainimpactspali AT patrickdonaldl mixedmethodsdevelopmentofanewpatientreportedoutcomeinstrumentforchroniclowbackpainpart2thepatientassessmentforlowbackpainimpactspali |