Feasibility of a patient-centered method to determine meaningful change in pain intensity on a survey of patients with a history of cancer.

IF 3.4 Q2 NEUROSCIENCES
Pain Reports Pub Date : 2022-06-06 eCollection Date: 2022-07-01 DOI:10.1097/PR9.0000000000001015
Salene M W Jones, Joseph M Unger
{"title":"Feasibility of a patient-centered method to determine meaningful change in pain intensity on a survey of patients with a history of cancer.","authors":"Salene M W Jones, Joseph M Unger","doi":"10.1097/PR9.0000000000001015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Current methods of determining minimally important differences (MIDs) in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) do not incorporate individual patient values.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study tested the feasibility of having cancer patients define a personally meaningful change in pain intensity, a method we have termed Precision PROs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Adults with cancer and pain (n = 231) completed an electronic questionnaire twice over 2 weeks. Participants were then given their pain intensity scores with an explanation of score meaning. Participants then defined their own MIDs for an increase and decrease in pain intensity. Participants also answered 3 questions testing their understanding of the MID concept.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The majority of participants could define an individually meaningful increase (97% [n = 223]) and individually meaningful decrease (98% [n = 226]) in pain intensity. Seventy-two percent of participants (n = 166) answered all test questions correctly and 26% (n = 60) answered 2 of 3 correctly. Using the individual MID, 32% (95% CI: 25.3, 40.0) of the sample experienced a meaningful change between the 2 surveys, more than other methods (<i>z</i>-test: 14%, 95% CI: 9.4, 20.6; distribution-based method: 24%, 95% CI: 17.7, 31.1).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study showed the feasibility of the Precision PRO individual MID, which could be used in clinical care or clinical trials. Further studies are needed to compare the individual MID to current methods.</p>","PeriodicalId":52189,"journal":{"name":"Pain Reports","volume":"7 1","pages":"e1015"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10833635/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pain Reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/PR9.0000000000001015","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/7/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Current methods of determining minimally important differences (MIDs) in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) do not incorporate individual patient values.

Objectives: This study tested the feasibility of having cancer patients define a personally meaningful change in pain intensity, a method we have termed Precision PROs.

Methods: Adults with cancer and pain (n = 231) completed an electronic questionnaire twice over 2 weeks. Participants were then given their pain intensity scores with an explanation of score meaning. Participants then defined their own MIDs for an increase and decrease in pain intensity. Participants also answered 3 questions testing their understanding of the MID concept.

Results: The majority of participants could define an individually meaningful increase (97% [n = 223]) and individually meaningful decrease (98% [n = 226]) in pain intensity. Seventy-two percent of participants (n = 166) answered all test questions correctly and 26% (n = 60) answered 2 of 3 correctly. Using the individual MID, 32% (95% CI: 25.3, 40.0) of the sample experienced a meaningful change between the 2 surveys, more than other methods (z-test: 14%, 95% CI: 9.4, 20.6; distribution-based method: 24%, 95% CI: 17.7, 31.1).

Conclusions: This study showed the feasibility of the Precision PRO individual MID, which could be used in clinical care or clinical trials. Further studies are needed to compare the individual MID to current methods.

一种以患者为中心的方法在对有癌症病史的患者的调查中确定疼痛强度有意义的变化的可行性
患有癌症和疼痛的人理解个体最小重要差异的概念,并能够定义疼痛强度有意义变化的个体水平。单独定义的有意义的变化水平可能比标准化的度量对变化更敏感。引言:目前确定患者报告结果(PROs)中最小重要差异(MID)的方法没有纳入单个患者的价值观。目的:这项研究测试了让癌症患者定义个人有意义的疼痛强度变化的可行性,我们称之为精确PROs的方法。方法:癌症和疼痛的成年人(n=231)在两周内完成两次电子问卷。然后给参与者给出他们的疼痛强度分数,并解释分数的含义。然后,参与者定义了他们自己的疼痛强度增加和减少的MID。参与者还回答了3个问题,测试他们对MID概念的理解。结果:大多数参与者可以定义疼痛强度的个体有意义的增加(97%[n=223])和个体有意义地减少(98%[n=226])。72%的参与者(n=166)正确回答了所有测试问题,26%(n=60)答对了3个问题中的2个。使用个体MID,32%(95%CI:25.340.0)的样本在两次调查之间经历了有意义的变化,比其他方法(z检验:14%,95%CI:94.20.6;基于分布的方法:24%,95%CI:17.731.1)更多。结论:本研究表明了Precision PRO个体MID的可行性,可用于临床护理或临床试验。需要进一步的研究来将单个MID与当前的方法进行比较。
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
Pain Reports
Pain Reports Medicine-Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
2.10%
发文量
93
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
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