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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |