Exploring the cognitive processes of both Arabic and English‐speaking patients when completing the brief pain inventory: A qualitative study

IF 1.5 Q3 RHEUMATOLOGY
Gopi Patel, Bernadette Brady, Matthew McMullan, Clarice Tang
{"title":"Exploring the cognitive processes of both Arabic and English‐speaking patients when completing the brief pain inventory: A qualitative study","authors":"Gopi Patel, Bernadette Brady, Matthew McMullan, Clarice Tang","doi":"10.1002/msc.1856","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) is one of the most commonly used self‐initiated questionnaire for people with chronic pain. Although the questionnaire has been translated into multiple different languages and tested for its inter‐tester reliability, no study has currently explored the differences in interpretation of this questionnaire between non‐English speakers as compared to English‐speakers.Using the Arabic‐language group as the comparator, this study explored the interpretation of the English and Arabic language Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) among participants living with chronic neuromusculoskeletal pain from Arabic‐ and English‐speaking backgrounds.This qualitative study utilises the Think Aloud method to explore the differences in the interpretation of the BPI between two language groups. Consecutive consenting adults attending a tertiary pain clinic for management of a chronic neuromusculoskeletal pain condition and self‐identifying with a native English‐speaking (n = 15) or Arabic‐speaking (n = 15) background were included. Structured interviews using the think‐aloud method were conducted, audio‐recorded and analysed using coding and thematic analysis.Interpretation errors across three or more questions were recorded for all Arabic‐speaking participants and two English‐speaking participants. Three themes characterised appraisals of pain and interpretation of the BPI across the two cohorts: 1) pain constancy vs. variability, 2) the ability‐disability spectrum and 3) variance in expression of pain.Cross‐cultural differences in the appraisal of pain influenced participants' interpretation of the BPI. The cultural influences on conceptualisation of pain need to be considered when using the BPI across different cultures.","PeriodicalId":46945,"journal":{"name":"Musculoskeletal Care","volume":"58 15","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Musculoskeletal Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/msc.1856","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RHEUMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) is one of the most commonly used self‐initiated questionnaire for people with chronic pain. Although the questionnaire has been translated into multiple different languages and tested for its inter‐tester reliability, no study has currently explored the differences in interpretation of this questionnaire between non‐English speakers as compared to English‐speakers.Using the Arabic‐language group as the comparator, this study explored the interpretation of the English and Arabic language Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) among participants living with chronic neuromusculoskeletal pain from Arabic‐ and English‐speaking backgrounds.This qualitative study utilises the Think Aloud method to explore the differences in the interpretation of the BPI between two language groups. Consecutive consenting adults attending a tertiary pain clinic for management of a chronic neuromusculoskeletal pain condition and self‐identifying with a native English‐speaking (n = 15) or Arabic‐speaking (n = 15) background were included. Structured interviews using the think‐aloud method were conducted, audio‐recorded and analysed using coding and thematic analysis.Interpretation errors across three or more questions were recorded for all Arabic‐speaking participants and two English‐speaking participants. Three themes characterised appraisals of pain and interpretation of the BPI across the two cohorts: 1) pain constancy vs. variability, 2) the ability‐disability spectrum and 3) variance in expression of pain.Cross‐cultural differences in the appraisal of pain influenced participants' interpretation of the BPI. The cultural influences on conceptualisation of pain need to be considered when using the BPI across different cultures.
探索阿拉伯语和英语患者在完成简短疼痛清单时的认知过程:定性研究
简明疼痛量表(BPI)是慢性疼痛患者最常用的自发问卷之一。虽然该问卷已被翻译成多种不同语言,并对测试者之间的可靠性进行了测试,但目前还没有研究探讨过非英语使用者与英语使用者在解读该问卷时的差异。本研究以阿拉伯语组为比较对象,探讨了阿拉伯语和英语背景的慢性神经肌肉骨骼疼痛患者对英语和阿拉伯语简明疼痛量表(BPI)的解释。研究对象包括连续就诊于一家三级疼痛诊所、同意接受慢性神经肌肉骨骼疼痛治疗的成年人,他们自称母语为英语(n = 15)或阿拉伯语(n = 15)。所有讲阿拉伯语的参与者和两名讲英语的参与者都记录了三个或三个以上问题的解释错误。两个组群的疼痛评估和 BPI 解释有三个主题:1) 疼痛的恒定性与可变性;2) 能力-残疾谱;3) 疼痛表达的差异。疼痛评估的跨文化差异影响了参与者对 BPI 的解释。在不同文化背景下使用 BPI 时,需要考虑文化对疼痛概念化的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Musculoskeletal Care
Musculoskeletal Care RHEUMATOLOGY-
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
7.70%
发文量
88
期刊介绍: Musculoskeletal Care is a peer-reviewed journal for all health professionals committed to the clinical delivery of high quality care for people with musculoskeletal conditions and providing knowledge to support decision making by professionals, patients and policy makers. This journal publishes papers on original research, applied research, review articles and clinical guidelines. Regular topics include patient education, psychological and social impact, patient experiences of health care, clinical up dates and the effectiveness of therapy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信