评估疼痛患者恢复力、乐观、疼痛接受和社会支持的首选自我管理问卷:一项修正德尔菲研究

A. Schroeter, D. MacDonald, G. Scholten-Peeters, L. Goubert, E. Kendall, M. Coppieters
{"title":"评估疼痛患者恢复力、乐观、疼痛接受和社会支持的首选自我管理问卷:一项修正德尔菲研究","authors":"A. Schroeter, D. MacDonald, G. Scholten-Peeters, L. Goubert, E. Kendall, M. Coppieters","doi":"10.1093/pm/pnac074","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Objectives The plethora of self-administered questionnaires to assess positive psychosocial factors complicates questionnaire selection. This study aimed to identify and reach consensus on the most suitable self-administered questionnaires to assess resilience, optimism, pain acceptance and social support in people with pain. Design A three-round modified Delphi study. Participants Forty international experts. Methods In Round 1, the experts suggested questionnaires deemed appropriate to assess resilience, optimism, pain acceptance and/or social support. In Round 2, experts indicated whether they considered the suggested questionnaires to be suitable (Yes/No/Don’t know) to assess these psychosocial factors, taking into consideration content, feasibility, personal experience and the measurement properties which we provided for each questionnaire. Questionnaires that were considered suitable by the majority of experts (≥60%) were retained for Round 3. In Round 3, the suitability of each questionnaire was rated on a 0–10 Likert scale. Consensus was reached if ≥75% of experts rated the questionnaire ≥7. Results From the 67 questionnaires suggested in Round 1, one questionnaire could be recommended per domain. For resilience: Pain Resilience Scale; for optimism: Revised Version of the Life Orientation Test; for pain acceptance: 8-item and Revised Versions of the Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire; for social support: Emotional Support Item Bank of the PROMIS tool. Consensus for these questionnaires was also reached in a sensitivity analysis which excluded the ratings of experts involved in the development, translation and/or validation of relevant questionnaires. Conclusion We advocate the use of these recommended questionnaires so data can be compared and pooled more easily.","PeriodicalId":19909,"journal":{"name":"Pain Medicine: The Official Journal of the American Academy of Pain Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Preferred Self-Administered Questionnaires to Assess Resilience, Optimism, Pain Acceptance, and Social Support in People with Pain: A Modified Delphi Study\",\"authors\":\"A. Schroeter, D. MacDonald, G. Scholten-Peeters, L. Goubert, E. Kendall, M. Coppieters\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/pm/pnac074\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Objectives The plethora of self-administered questionnaires to assess positive psychosocial factors complicates questionnaire selection. This study aimed to identify and reach consensus on the most suitable self-administered questionnaires to assess resilience, optimism, pain acceptance and social support in people with pain. Design A three-round modified Delphi study. Participants Forty international experts. Methods In Round 1, the experts suggested questionnaires deemed appropriate to assess resilience, optimism, pain acceptance and/or social support. In Round 2, experts indicated whether they considered the suggested questionnaires to be suitable (Yes/No/Don’t know) to assess these psychosocial factors, taking into consideration content, feasibility, personal experience and the measurement properties which we provided for each questionnaire. Questionnaires that were considered suitable by the majority of experts (≥60%) were retained for Round 3. In Round 3, the suitability of each questionnaire was rated on a 0–10 Likert scale. Consensus was reached if ≥75% of experts rated the questionnaire ≥7. Results From the 67 questionnaires suggested in Round 1, one questionnaire could be recommended per domain. For resilience: Pain Resilience Scale; for optimism: Revised Version of the Life Orientation Test; for pain acceptance: 8-item and Revised Versions of the Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire; for social support: Emotional Support Item Bank of the PROMIS tool. Consensus for these questionnaires was also reached in a sensitivity analysis which excluded the ratings of experts involved in the development, translation and/or validation of relevant questionnaires. Conclusion We advocate the use of these recommended questionnaires so data can be compared and pooled more easily.\",\"PeriodicalId\":19909,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pain Medicine: The Official Journal of the American Academy of Pain Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pain Medicine: The Official Journal of the American Academy of Pain Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/pm/pnac074\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pain Medicine: The Official Journal of the American Academy of Pain Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/pm/pnac074","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的评估积极心理社会因素的自我管理问卷过多,使问卷选择复杂化。本研究旨在确定并达成共识的最合适的自我管理问卷,以评估疼痛患者的弹性,乐观,疼痛接受和社会支持。设计三轮修正德尔菲研究。参与者40名国际专家。在第一轮中,专家们提出了适合评估心理韧性、乐观度、痛苦接受度和/或社会支持度的问卷。在第二轮中,专家们表示他们是否认为建议的问卷适合评估这些心理社会因素(是/否/不知道),考虑到内容、可行性、个人经验和我们为每张问卷提供的测量属性。大多数专家(≥60%)认为合适的问卷保留到第三轮。在第三轮中,每个问卷的适用性以0-10的李克特量表进行评分。如果≥75%的专家认为问卷≥7,则达成共识。结果在第一轮的67份问卷中,每个领域可以推荐一份问卷。对于恢复力:疼痛恢复力量表;乐观:人生取向测验修订版;疼痛接受:《慢性疼痛接受问卷》8项及修订版;社会支持:PROMIS工具的情感支持项目库。敏感度分析也对这些问卷达成了共识,该分析排除了参与相关问卷的开发、翻译和/或验证的专家的评级。结论我们提倡使用这些推荐问卷,以便于数据的比较和汇集。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Preferred Self-Administered Questionnaires to Assess Resilience, Optimism, Pain Acceptance, and Social Support in People with Pain: A Modified Delphi Study
Abstract Objectives The plethora of self-administered questionnaires to assess positive psychosocial factors complicates questionnaire selection. This study aimed to identify and reach consensus on the most suitable self-administered questionnaires to assess resilience, optimism, pain acceptance and social support in people with pain. Design A three-round modified Delphi study. Participants Forty international experts. Methods In Round 1, the experts suggested questionnaires deemed appropriate to assess resilience, optimism, pain acceptance and/or social support. In Round 2, experts indicated whether they considered the suggested questionnaires to be suitable (Yes/No/Don’t know) to assess these psychosocial factors, taking into consideration content, feasibility, personal experience and the measurement properties which we provided for each questionnaire. Questionnaires that were considered suitable by the majority of experts (≥60%) were retained for Round 3. In Round 3, the suitability of each questionnaire was rated on a 0–10 Likert scale. Consensus was reached if ≥75% of experts rated the questionnaire ≥7. Results From the 67 questionnaires suggested in Round 1, one questionnaire could be recommended per domain. For resilience: Pain Resilience Scale; for optimism: Revised Version of the Life Orientation Test; for pain acceptance: 8-item and Revised Versions of the Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire; for social support: Emotional Support Item Bank of the PROMIS tool. Consensus for these questionnaires was also reached in a sensitivity analysis which excluded the ratings of experts involved in the development, translation and/or validation of relevant questionnaires. Conclusion We advocate the use of these recommended questionnaires so data can be compared and pooled more easily.
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