改良的简易疼痛调查表-探查表在外科患者中的验证

Wen-Hung Chen PhD , Kitty S. Chan PhD , Tong J. Gan MD , Connie Chen PharmD , Mani Lakshminarayanan PhD , Dennis A. Revicki PhD
{"title":"改良的简易疼痛调查表-探查表在外科患者中的验证","authors":"Wen-Hung Chen PhD ,&nbsp;Kitty S. Chan PhD ,&nbsp;Tong J. Gan MD ,&nbsp;Connie Chen PharmD ,&nbsp;Mani Lakshminarayanan PhD ,&nbsp;Dennis A. Revicki PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.ehrm.2010.04.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>An exploratory version of the Modified Brief Pain Inventory (mBPI-e) to measure acute post-operative pain, with new items on coughing, breathing, and concentration, was examined for their measurement properties.</p></div><div><h3>Study Design</h3><p><span>This is a secondary study using data from two randomized clinical trials<span>: general surgery trial (N=1050) and coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery trial (N=1636). The measurements used in the two trials were: 1) mBPI-e; 2) clinician and patient global evaluations of medications; and 3) pain intensity diary. The mBPI-e and pain intensity were collected for 10 days. Clinician and patient global evaluations of medication were collected twice. The analyses conducted were: 1) exploratory factor analysis (EFA); 2) </span></span>confirmatory factor analysis<span> (CFA); 3) item response theory (IRT); 4) internal consistency; 5) test-retest reliability; 6) concurrent validity; 7) known-group validity; and 8) responsiveness.</span></p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Pain severity, pain interference, and coughing and breathing factors were identified. Pain severity and pain interference subscale scores were constructed for mBPI-e. IRT analyses showed all items exhibited good item characteristics. Internal consistency was 0.85 for severity and 0.87 for interference. Test-retest reliability was 0.81 for severity and 0.71 for interference. Both severity and interference scores were correlated with diary-based pain intensity ratings (<em>P</em> &lt;.0001). Mean severity and interference scores varied by physician and patient global ratings (<em>P</em> &lt;.05). Severity and interference scores were responsive to changes in pain diary scores and physician global ratings (<em>P</em> &lt;.001). There were no substantive differences in reliability or validity for sub-samples of surgery patients.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The original BPI has been used in clinical studies, and the mBPI has demonstrated good reliability and validity in CABG patients. Based on this study, the mBPI-e has also demonstrated good reliability and validity for assessing postoperative acute pain in CABG and general surgery patients.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":88882,"journal":{"name":"Health outcomes research in medicine","volume":"1 1","pages":"Pages e17-e28"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.ehrm.2010.04.001","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Validation of the Modified Brief Pain Inventory-Exploratory Form in Surgery Patients\",\"authors\":\"Wen-Hung Chen PhD ,&nbsp;Kitty S. Chan PhD ,&nbsp;Tong J. Gan MD ,&nbsp;Connie Chen PharmD ,&nbsp;Mani Lakshminarayanan PhD ,&nbsp;Dennis A. Revicki PhD\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ehrm.2010.04.001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>An exploratory version of the Modified Brief Pain Inventory (mBPI-e) to measure acute post-operative pain, with new items on coughing, breathing, and concentration, was examined for their measurement properties.</p></div><div><h3>Study Design</h3><p><span>This is a secondary study using data from two randomized clinical trials<span>: general surgery trial (N=1050) and coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery trial (N=1636). The measurements used in the two trials were: 1) mBPI-e; 2) clinician and patient global evaluations of medications; and 3) pain intensity diary. The mBPI-e and pain intensity were collected for 10 days. Clinician and patient global evaluations of medication were collected twice. The analyses conducted were: 1) exploratory factor analysis (EFA); 2) </span></span>confirmatory factor analysis<span> (CFA); 3) item response theory (IRT); 4) internal consistency; 5) test-retest reliability; 6) concurrent validity; 7) known-group validity; and 8) responsiveness.</span></p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Pain severity, pain interference, and coughing and breathing factors were identified. Pain severity and pain interference subscale scores were constructed for mBPI-e. IRT analyses showed all items exhibited good item characteristics. Internal consistency was 0.85 for severity and 0.87 for interference. Test-retest reliability was 0.81 for severity and 0.71 for interference. Both severity and interference scores were correlated with diary-based pain intensity ratings (<em>P</em> &lt;.0001). Mean severity and interference scores varied by physician and patient global ratings (<em>P</em> &lt;.05). Severity and interference scores were responsive to changes in pain diary scores and physician global ratings (<em>P</em> &lt;.001). There were no substantive differences in reliability or validity for sub-samples of surgery patients.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The original BPI has been used in clinical studies, and the mBPI has demonstrated good reliability and validity in CABG patients. Based on this study, the mBPI-e has also demonstrated good reliability and validity for assessing postoperative acute pain in CABG and general surgery patients.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":88882,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health outcomes research in medicine\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"Pages e17-e28\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2010-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.ehrm.2010.04.001\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health outcomes research in medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877131910000029\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health outcomes research in medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877131910000029","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

目的探讨改进的简易疼痛量表(mBPI-e)在增加咳嗽、呼吸、注意力集中等项目后,测量急性术后疼痛的性能。这是一项二级研究,数据来自两项随机临床试验:普通外科试验(N=1050)和冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)手术试验(N=1636)。两项试验中使用的测量方法为:1)mBPI-e;2)临床医生和患者对药物的整体评价;3)疼痛强度日记。连续10 d采集mBPI-e和疼痛强度。收集两次临床医生和患者对药物的总体评价。分析方法:1)探索性因子分析(EFA);2)验证性因子分析(CFA);项目反应理论(IRT);4)内部一致性;5)重测信度;6)同时有效;7)已知组效度;还有反应能力。结果确定了西班牙严重程度、疼痛干扰、咳嗽和呼吸因素。对mBPI-e进行疼痛严重程度和疼痛干扰分量表评分。IRT分析显示所有项目都表现出良好的项目特征。内部一致性的严重性为0.85,干扰为0.87。严重性的重测信度为0.81,干扰的重测信度为0.71。严重程度和干扰评分均与基于日记的疼痛强度评分相关(P <.0001)。平均严重程度和干扰评分因医生和患者总体评分而异(P < 0.05)。严重程度和干扰评分对疼痛日记评分和医生总体评分的变化有反应(P <.001)。手术患者的子样本在信度和效度上没有实质性差异。结论原始BPI已用于临床研究,mBPI在CABG患者中表现出良好的信度和效度。基于本研究,mBPI-e在评估CABG和普外科患者术后急性疼痛方面也显示出良好的信度和效度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Validation of the Modified Brief Pain Inventory-Exploratory Form in Surgery Patients

Objective

An exploratory version of the Modified Brief Pain Inventory (mBPI-e) to measure acute post-operative pain, with new items on coughing, breathing, and concentration, was examined for their measurement properties.

Study Design

This is a secondary study using data from two randomized clinical trials: general surgery trial (N=1050) and coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery trial (N=1636). The measurements used in the two trials were: 1) mBPI-e; 2) clinician and patient global evaluations of medications; and 3) pain intensity diary. The mBPI-e and pain intensity were collected for 10 days. Clinician and patient global evaluations of medication were collected twice. The analyses conducted were: 1) exploratory factor analysis (EFA); 2) confirmatory factor analysis (CFA); 3) item response theory (IRT); 4) internal consistency; 5) test-retest reliability; 6) concurrent validity; 7) known-group validity; and 8) responsiveness.

Results

Pain severity, pain interference, and coughing and breathing factors were identified. Pain severity and pain interference subscale scores were constructed for mBPI-e. IRT analyses showed all items exhibited good item characteristics. Internal consistency was 0.85 for severity and 0.87 for interference. Test-retest reliability was 0.81 for severity and 0.71 for interference. Both severity and interference scores were correlated with diary-based pain intensity ratings (P <.0001). Mean severity and interference scores varied by physician and patient global ratings (P <.05). Severity and interference scores were responsive to changes in pain diary scores and physician global ratings (P <.001). There were no substantive differences in reliability or validity for sub-samples of surgery patients.

Conclusions

The original BPI has been used in clinical studies, and the mBPI has demonstrated good reliability and validity in CABG patients. Based on this study, the mBPI-e has also demonstrated good reliability and validity for assessing postoperative acute pain in CABG and general surgery patients.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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