Assessing pain intensity in people from non-western countries: A multicenter study comparing four pain scales in adults with musculoskeletal pain in Bhutan

IF 4 2区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Monu Tamang , Mark P. Jensen , Anupa Pathak , Karma Phuentsho , Saurab Sharma
{"title":"Assessing pain intensity in people from non-western countries: A multicenter study comparing four pain scales in adults with musculoskeletal pain in Bhutan","authors":"Monu Tamang ,&nbsp;Mark P. Jensen ,&nbsp;Anupa Pathak ,&nbsp;Karma Phuentsho ,&nbsp;Saurab Sharma","doi":"10.1016/j.jpain.2025.105492","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Although the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) is commonly recommended for use in research and clinical practice internationally, recent research in non-western countries questions its utility in some countries. We aimed to evaluate validity and utility of four commonly used pain intensity measures in a sample of participants with musculoskeletal pain in Bhutan. Two hundred forty-seven adults with musculoskeletal pain visiting three hospitals rated their one-week recalled worst and average pain using all four scales, and indicated their preferred scale. For analysis, participant responses were classified as being a correct or an incorrect response, where an “incorrect response” was defined as a response that did not meet pre-defined criteria. All four scales demonstrated adequate construct validity. The VAS and NRS had significantly higher incorrect response rates (9% each) than the other scales. Participants who were older and with less education had higher rates of incorrect responses on the NRS and VAS. The FPS-R (45%) was the most preferred scale, followed by the NRS (26%); there were no significant differences in preference rates between the VRS (15%) and VAS (5%). The findings suggest that the FPS-R should be used to assess pain intensity in Bhutanese people with musculoskeletal pain, especially in individuals with no formal education.</div></div><div><h3>Perspective</h3><div>This study evaluated the utility and validity of four commonly used pain intensity scales in Bhutan. The findings could help clinicians and researchers select the most appropriate scale for measuring pain intensity in Bhutanese individuals.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51095,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pain","volume":"34 ","pages":"Article 105492"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pain","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1526590025007199","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Although the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) is commonly recommended for use in research and clinical practice internationally, recent research in non-western countries questions its utility in some countries. We aimed to evaluate validity and utility of four commonly used pain intensity measures in a sample of participants with musculoskeletal pain in Bhutan. Two hundred forty-seven adults with musculoskeletal pain visiting three hospitals rated their one-week recalled worst and average pain using all four scales, and indicated their preferred scale. For analysis, participant responses were classified as being a correct or an incorrect response, where an “incorrect response” was defined as a response that did not meet pre-defined criteria. All four scales demonstrated adequate construct validity. The VAS and NRS had significantly higher incorrect response rates (9% each) than the other scales. Participants who were older and with less education had higher rates of incorrect responses on the NRS and VAS. The FPS-R (45%) was the most preferred scale, followed by the NRS (26%); there were no significant differences in preference rates between the VRS (15%) and VAS (5%). The findings suggest that the FPS-R should be used to assess pain intensity in Bhutanese people with musculoskeletal pain, especially in individuals with no formal education.

Perspective

This study evaluated the utility and validity of four commonly used pain intensity scales in Bhutan. The findings could help clinicians and researchers select the most appropriate scale for measuring pain intensity in Bhutanese individuals.
评估非西方国家人们的疼痛强度:一项多中心研究比较了不丹成人肌肉骨骼疼痛的四种疼痛量表。
尽管国际上普遍推荐在研究和临床实践中使用数字评定量表(NRS),但最近非西方国家的研究对其实用性提出了质疑。我们旨在评估不丹肌肉骨骼疼痛参与者样本中四种常用疼痛强度测量的有效性和效用。247名患有肌肉骨骼疼痛的成年人访问了三家医院,使用所有四种量表对他们一周的最严重疼痛和平均疼痛进行了评分,并指出了他们喜欢的量表。为了进行分析,参与者的回答被分为正确或错误的回答,其中“错误的回答”被定义为不符合预定义标准的回答。四种量表均表现出足够的构念效度。VAS和NRS的错误反应率明显高于其他量表(各为9%)。年龄较大和受教育程度较低的参与者在NRS和VAS上的错误回答率更高。FPS-R量表(45%)是最受欢迎的量表,其次是NRS量表(26%);VRS(15%)和VAS(5%)的偏好率无显著差异。研究结果表明,FPS-R应该用于评估不丹肌肉骨骼疼痛患者的疼痛强度,特别是没有受过正规教育的个体。观点:本研究评估了不丹常用的四种疼痛强度量表的效用和有效性。这些发现可以帮助临床医生和研究人员选择最合适的量表来测量不丹人的疼痛强度。
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
Journal of Pain
Journal of Pain 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
7.50%
发文量
441
审稿时长
42 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Pain publishes original articles related to all aspects of pain, including clinical and basic research, patient care, education, and health policy. Articles selected for publication in the Journal are most commonly reports of original clinical research or reports of original basic research. In addition, invited critical reviews, including meta analyses of drugs for pain management, invited commentaries on reviews, and exceptional case studies are published in the Journal. The mission of the Journal is to improve the care of patients in pain by providing a forum for clinical researchers, basic scientists, clinicians, and other health professionals to publish original research.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信