Literature DB >> 21267043

Reliability and validity of the Global Pain Scale with chronic pain sufferers.

Douglas A Gentile1, Jonathan Woodhouse, Paul Lynch, Julia Maier, Tory McJunkin.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Many pain scales exist today; however, a comprehensive, easy-to-analyze test has yet to be available to evaluate a patient's pain and understand the sociocultural, cognitive, and affective factors contributing to a patient's overall pain experience. Many scales have attempted to create an all-encompassing pain assessment but remain incomplete in their assessment of pain and the contributing aspects of pain.
OBJECTIVE: To present the Global Pain Scale (GPS) as an alternative to current pain assessments and evaluate the reliability and construct validity of the GPS.
METHODS: Two hundred sixty-two undergraduates with chronic pain at a large midwestern university participated in this survey study. Participants reported in which of 14 specific body regions they have pain, the frequency of pain, and treatment history for their pain. Participants completed 4 scales--GPS, the West Haven Yale Scale (WHY), the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), and the short form McGill (SF-MPQ)--in a randomized order.
RESULTS: The GPS demonstrated high criterion validity and high construct validity (including both convergent and discriminant validity). The total GPS scale and each of the subscales were reliable. The total GPS score was significantly correlated with all other subscales, excluding those for which there is a theoretical reason for them to not be correlated with our participant population. LIMITATIONS: A sample of college students was used, thus decreasing the generalizability of these findings to patients approximating our sample.
CONCLUSIONS: The GPS is a valid scale that is concise and easily interpreted. The GPS is a comprehensive assessment of pain evaluating pain, emotions, clinical outcomes, and daily activities. This may be a valuable tool for evaluation and treatment planning for interventional pain management physicians.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21267043

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pain Physician        ISSN: 1533-3159            Impact factor:   4.965


  5 in total

1.  Reliability of a patient survey assessing cost-related changes in health care use among high deductible health plan enrollees.

Authors:  Robert B Penfold; Jeffrey T Kullgren; Irina Miroshnik; Alison A Galbraith; Virginia L Hinrichsen; Tracy A Lieu
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2011-05-27       Impact factor: 2.655

2.  Psychological, cognitive factors and contextual influences in pain and pain-related suffering as revealed by a combined qualitative and quantitative assessment approach.

Authors:  Smadar Bustan; Ana Maria Gonzalez-Roldan; Christoph Schommer; Sandra Kamping; Martin Löffler; Michael Brunner; Herta Flor; Fernand Anton
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-07-31       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  A verbal descriptor incremental pain scale developed by South African Tswana-speaking patients with low back pain.

Authors:  Michelle Yazbek; Aimee V Stewart; Alison Bentley
Journal:  S Afr J Physiother       Date:  2018-08-30

4.  A Longitudinal Analysis of Total Pain Scores for a Panel of Patients Treated by Pain Clinics.

Authors:  Thomas T H Wan; Varadraj Gurupur; Anand Patel
Journal:  Health Serv Res Manag Epidemiol       Date:  2019-04-08

5.  The Complementary Health Approaches for Pain Survey (CHAPS): Validity testing and characteristics of a rural population with pain.

Authors:  Termeh Feinberg; Dina L Jones; Christa Lilly; Amna Umer; Kim Innes
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-05-02       Impact factor: 3.240

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.