Cargando…
The patient enablement instrument for back pain: reliability, content validity, construct validity and responsiveness
BACKGROUND: Currently, there are no outcome measures assessing the ability of people with non-specific low back pain to self-manage their illness. Inspired by the ‘Patient Enablement Instrument’, we developed the Patient Enablement Instrument for Back Pain (PEI-BP). The aim of this study was to desc...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8033700/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33836764 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12955-021-01758-0 |
_version_ | 1783676449369096192 |
---|---|
author | Molgaard Nielsen, A. Hartvigsen, J. Kongsted, A. Öberg, B. Enthoven, P. Abbott, A. Lauridsen, H. H. |
author_facet | Molgaard Nielsen, A. Hartvigsen, J. Kongsted, A. Öberg, B. Enthoven, P. Abbott, A. Lauridsen, H. H. |
author_sort | Molgaard Nielsen, A. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Currently, there are no outcome measures assessing the ability of people with non-specific low back pain to self-manage their illness. Inspired by the ‘Patient Enablement Instrument’, we developed the Patient Enablement Instrument for Back Pain (PEI-BP). The aim of this study was to describe the development of the Patient Enablement Instrument for Back Pain (PEI-BP) and investigate content validity, construct validity, internal consistency, test–retest reliability, measurement error, responsiveness and floor and ceiling effects. METHODS: The PEI-BP consists of 6 items that are rated on a 0–10 Numeric Rating Scale. Measurement properties were evaluated using the COSMIN taxonomy and were based on three cohorts from primary care with low back pain: The content validity cohort (N = 14) which participated in semi-structured interviews, the GLA:D® Back cohort (N = 272) and the test–retest cohort (N = 37) which both completed self-reported questionnaires. For construct validity and responsiveness, enablement was compared to disability (Oswestry Disability Index), back pain beliefs (Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire), fear avoidance (Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire—physical activity), mental health (SF-36), educational level and number of previous episodes of low back pain. RESULTS: The PEI-BP was found to have acceptable content validity, construct validity, reliability (internal consistency, test–retest reliability and measurement error) and responsiveness. The Smallest Detectable Change was 10.1 points illustrating that a patient would have to change more than 1/6 of the scale range for it to be a true change. A skewed distribution towards the high scores were found at baseline indicating a potentially problematic ceiling effect in the current population. CONCLUSIONS: The PEI-BP can be considered a valid and reliable tool to measure enablement on people seeking care for non-specific LBP. Further testing of the PEI-BP in populations with more severe LBP is recommended. Trial registration: Not applicable. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12955-021-01758-0. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8033700 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-80337002021-04-09 The patient enablement instrument for back pain: reliability, content validity, construct validity and responsiveness Molgaard Nielsen, A. Hartvigsen, J. Kongsted, A. Öberg, B. Enthoven, P. Abbott, A. Lauridsen, H. H. Health Qual Life Outcomes Research BACKGROUND: Currently, there are no outcome measures assessing the ability of people with non-specific low back pain to self-manage their illness. Inspired by the ‘Patient Enablement Instrument’, we developed the Patient Enablement Instrument for Back Pain (PEI-BP). The aim of this study was to describe the development of the Patient Enablement Instrument for Back Pain (PEI-BP) and investigate content validity, construct validity, internal consistency, test–retest reliability, measurement error, responsiveness and floor and ceiling effects. METHODS: The PEI-BP consists of 6 items that are rated on a 0–10 Numeric Rating Scale. Measurement properties were evaluated using the COSMIN taxonomy and were based on three cohorts from primary care with low back pain: The content validity cohort (N = 14) which participated in semi-structured interviews, the GLA:D® Back cohort (N = 272) and the test–retest cohort (N = 37) which both completed self-reported questionnaires. For construct validity and responsiveness, enablement was compared to disability (Oswestry Disability Index), back pain beliefs (Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire), fear avoidance (Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire—physical activity), mental health (SF-36), educational level and number of previous episodes of low back pain. RESULTS: The PEI-BP was found to have acceptable content validity, construct validity, reliability (internal consistency, test–retest reliability and measurement error) and responsiveness. The Smallest Detectable Change was 10.1 points illustrating that a patient would have to change more than 1/6 of the scale range for it to be a true change. A skewed distribution towards the high scores were found at baseline indicating a potentially problematic ceiling effect in the current population. CONCLUSIONS: The PEI-BP can be considered a valid and reliable tool to measure enablement on people seeking care for non-specific LBP. Further testing of the PEI-BP in populations with more severe LBP is recommended. Trial registration: Not applicable. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12955-021-01758-0. BioMed Central 2021-04-09 /pmc/articles/PMC8033700/ /pubmed/33836764 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12955-021-01758-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Molgaard Nielsen, A. Hartvigsen, J. Kongsted, A. Öberg, B. Enthoven, P. Abbott, A. Lauridsen, H. H. The patient enablement instrument for back pain: reliability, content validity, construct validity and responsiveness |
title | The patient enablement instrument for back pain: reliability, content validity, construct validity and responsiveness |
title_full | The patient enablement instrument for back pain: reliability, content validity, construct validity and responsiveness |
title_fullStr | The patient enablement instrument for back pain: reliability, content validity, construct validity and responsiveness |
title_full_unstemmed | The patient enablement instrument for back pain: reliability, content validity, construct validity and responsiveness |
title_short | The patient enablement instrument for back pain: reliability, content validity, construct validity and responsiveness |
title_sort | patient enablement instrument for back pain: reliability, content validity, construct validity and responsiveness |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8033700/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33836764 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12955-021-01758-0 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT molgaardnielsena thepatientenablementinstrumentforbackpainreliabilitycontentvalidityconstructvalidityandresponsiveness AT hartvigsenj thepatientenablementinstrumentforbackpainreliabilitycontentvalidityconstructvalidityandresponsiveness AT kongsteda thepatientenablementinstrumentforbackpainreliabilitycontentvalidityconstructvalidityandresponsiveness AT obergb thepatientenablementinstrumentforbackpainreliabilitycontentvalidityconstructvalidityandresponsiveness AT enthovenp thepatientenablementinstrumentforbackpainreliabilitycontentvalidityconstructvalidityandresponsiveness AT abbotta thepatientenablementinstrumentforbackpainreliabilitycontentvalidityconstructvalidityandresponsiveness AT lauridsenhh thepatientenablementinstrumentforbackpainreliabilitycontentvalidityconstructvalidityandresponsiveness AT molgaardnielsena patientenablementinstrumentforbackpainreliabilitycontentvalidityconstructvalidityandresponsiveness AT hartvigsenj patientenablementinstrumentforbackpainreliabilitycontentvalidityconstructvalidityandresponsiveness AT kongsteda patientenablementinstrumentforbackpainreliabilitycontentvalidityconstructvalidityandresponsiveness AT obergb patientenablementinstrumentforbackpainreliabilitycontentvalidityconstructvalidityandresponsiveness AT enthovenp patientenablementinstrumentforbackpainreliabilitycontentvalidityconstructvalidityandresponsiveness AT abbotta patientenablementinstrumentforbackpainreliabilitycontentvalidityconstructvalidityandresponsiveness AT lauridsenhh patientenablementinstrumentforbackpainreliabilitycontentvalidityconstructvalidityandresponsiveness |