Cargando…

Validity of Current Assessment Tools Aiming to Measure the Affective Component of Pain: A Systematic Review

The objective of this study was to identify patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), which aim to measure the affective component of pain and to assess their content validity, unidimensionality, measurement invariance, and Internal consistency in patients with chronic pain. The study was reported...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Heiberg Agerbeck, Anders, Martiny, Frederik Handberg Juul, Jauernik, Christian Patrick, Due Bruun, Karin, Rahbek, Or Joseph, Bissenbakker, Kristine H, Brodersen, John
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8274708/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34262380
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/PROM.S304950
_version_ 1783721593484083200
author Heiberg Agerbeck, Anders
Martiny, Frederik Handberg Juul
Jauernik, Christian Patrick
Due Bruun, Karin
Rahbek, Or Joseph
Bissenbakker, Kristine H
Brodersen, John
author_facet Heiberg Agerbeck, Anders
Martiny, Frederik Handberg Juul
Jauernik, Christian Patrick
Due Bruun, Karin
Rahbek, Or Joseph
Bissenbakker, Kristine H
Brodersen, John
author_sort Heiberg Agerbeck, Anders
collection PubMed
description The objective of this study was to identify patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), which aim to measure the affective component of pain and to assess their content validity, unidimensionality, measurement invariance, and Internal consistency in patients with chronic pain. The study was reported according to the PRISMA guidelines. A protocol of the review was submitted to PROSPERO before data extraction. Eligible studies were any type of study that investigated at least one of the domains: PROM development, content validity, dimensionality, internal consistency, or measurement invariance of any type of scale that claimed to measure the affective component of pain among patients with chronic pain. The databases Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library were searched for eligible studies. The database search was supplemented by looking for relevant articles in the reference list of included studies, ie backtracking. All included studies were assessed independently by two authors according to the “COSMIN methodology on Systematic Reviews of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures”. Descriptive data synthesis of the identified PROMs was conducted. The search yielded 11,242 titles of which 283 were assessed at the full-text level. Full-text screening led to the inclusion of 11 studies and an additional 28 studies were identified via backtracking, leading to the inclusion of 39 studies in total in the review. Included studies described the development and validity of 10 unique PROMs, all of which we assessed to have potentially inadequate content validity and doubtful psychometric properties. No studies reported whether the PROMs possessed invariant measurement properties. The existing PROMs measuring affective components of chronic pain potentially lack content validity and have inadequate psychometric measurement properties. There is a need for new PROMs measuring the affective component of chronic pain that possess high content validity and adequate psychometric measurement properties.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8274708
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Dove
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-82747082021-07-13 Validity of Current Assessment Tools Aiming to Measure the Affective Component of Pain: A Systematic Review Heiberg Agerbeck, Anders Martiny, Frederik Handberg Juul Jauernik, Christian Patrick Due Bruun, Karin Rahbek, Or Joseph Bissenbakker, Kristine H Brodersen, John Patient Relat Outcome Meas Review The objective of this study was to identify patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), which aim to measure the affective component of pain and to assess their content validity, unidimensionality, measurement invariance, and Internal consistency in patients with chronic pain. The study was reported according to the PRISMA guidelines. A protocol of the review was submitted to PROSPERO before data extraction. Eligible studies were any type of study that investigated at least one of the domains: PROM development, content validity, dimensionality, internal consistency, or measurement invariance of any type of scale that claimed to measure the affective component of pain among patients with chronic pain. The databases Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library were searched for eligible studies. The database search was supplemented by looking for relevant articles in the reference list of included studies, ie backtracking. All included studies were assessed independently by two authors according to the “COSMIN methodology on Systematic Reviews of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures”. Descriptive data synthesis of the identified PROMs was conducted. The search yielded 11,242 titles of which 283 were assessed at the full-text level. Full-text screening led to the inclusion of 11 studies and an additional 28 studies were identified via backtracking, leading to the inclusion of 39 studies in total in the review. Included studies described the development and validity of 10 unique PROMs, all of which we assessed to have potentially inadequate content validity and doubtful psychometric properties. No studies reported whether the PROMs possessed invariant measurement properties. The existing PROMs measuring affective components of chronic pain potentially lack content validity and have inadequate psychometric measurement properties. There is a need for new PROMs measuring the affective component of chronic pain that possess high content validity and adequate psychometric measurement properties. Dove 2021-07-06 /pmc/articles/PMC8274708/ /pubmed/34262380 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/PROM.S304950 Text en © 2021 Heiberg Agerbeck et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) ). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms (https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php).
spellingShingle Review
Heiberg Agerbeck, Anders
Martiny, Frederik Handberg Juul
Jauernik, Christian Patrick
Due Bruun, Karin
Rahbek, Or Joseph
Bissenbakker, Kristine H
Brodersen, John
Validity of Current Assessment Tools Aiming to Measure the Affective Component of Pain: A Systematic Review
title Validity of Current Assessment Tools Aiming to Measure the Affective Component of Pain: A Systematic Review
title_full Validity of Current Assessment Tools Aiming to Measure the Affective Component of Pain: A Systematic Review
title_fullStr Validity of Current Assessment Tools Aiming to Measure the Affective Component of Pain: A Systematic Review
title_full_unstemmed Validity of Current Assessment Tools Aiming to Measure the Affective Component of Pain: A Systematic Review
title_short Validity of Current Assessment Tools Aiming to Measure the Affective Component of Pain: A Systematic Review
title_sort validity of current assessment tools aiming to measure the affective component of pain: a systematic review
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8274708/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34262380
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/PROM.S304950
work_keys_str_mv AT heibergagerbeckanders validityofcurrentassessmenttoolsaimingtomeasuretheaffectivecomponentofpainasystematicreview
AT martinyfrederikhandbergjuul validityofcurrentassessmenttoolsaimingtomeasuretheaffectivecomponentofpainasystematicreview
AT jauernikchristianpatrick validityofcurrentassessmenttoolsaimingtomeasuretheaffectivecomponentofpainasystematicreview
AT duebruunkarin validityofcurrentassessmenttoolsaimingtomeasuretheaffectivecomponentofpainasystematicreview
AT rahbekorjoseph validityofcurrentassessmenttoolsaimingtomeasuretheaffectivecomponentofpainasystematicreview
AT bissenbakkerkristineh validityofcurrentassessmenttoolsaimingtomeasuretheaffectivecomponentofpainasystematicreview
AT brodersenjohn validityofcurrentassessmenttoolsaimingtomeasuretheaffectivecomponentofpainasystematicreview