Kurt Kroenke1, Zhangsheng Yu, Jingwei Wu, Jacob Kean, Patrick O Monahan. 1. VA HSR&D Center for Health Information and Communication, Roudebush VA Medical Center, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA; Department of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA; Regenstrief Institute, Inc., Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE:Depression and anxiety are prevalent in patients with chronic pain and adversely affect pain, quality of life, and treatment response. The purpose of this psychometric study was to determine the reliability and validity of the four-item Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) depression and anxiety scales in patients with chronic pain. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of data from the Stepped Care to Optimize Pain care Effectiveness study, a randomized clinical trial of optimized analgesic therapy. SETTING:Five primary care clinics at the Roudebush VA Medical Center (RVAMC) in Indianapolis, Indiana. SUBJECTS:Two hundred forty-four primary care patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. METHODS: All patients completed the four-item depression and anxiety scales from the PROMIS 29-item profile, as well as several other validated psychological measures. The minimally important difference (MID) using the standard error of measurement (SEM) was calculated for each scale, and convergent validity was assessed by interscale correlations at baseline and 3 months. Operating characteristics of the PROMIS measures for detecting patients who had probable major depression or were anxiety-disorder screen-positive were calculated. RESULTS: The PROMIS scales had good internal reliability, and the MID (as represented by two SEMs) was 2 points for the depression scale and 2.5 points for the anxiety scale. Convergent validity was supported by strong interscale correlations. The optimal screening cutpoint on the 4- to 20-point PROMIS scales appeared to be 8 for both the depression and anxiety scales. CONCLUSIONS: The PROMIS four-item depression and anxiety scales are reasonable options as ultra-brief measures for screening in patients with chronic pain. Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE:Depression and anxiety are prevalent in patients with chronic pain and adversely affect pain, quality of life, and treatment response. The purpose of this psychometric study was to determine the reliability and validity of the four-item Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) depression and anxiety scales in patients with chronic pain. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of data from the Stepped Care to Optimize Pain care Effectiveness study, a randomized clinical trial of optimized analgesic therapy. SETTING: Five primary care clinics at the Roudebush VA Medical Center (RVAMC) in Indianapolis, Indiana. SUBJECTS: Two hundred forty-four primary care patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. METHODS: All patients completed the four-item depression and anxiety scales from the PROMIS 29-item profile, as well as several other validated psychological measures. The minimally important difference (MID) using the standard error of measurement (SEM) was calculated for each scale, and convergent validity was assessed by interscale correlations at baseline and 3 months. Operating characteristics of the PROMIS measures for detecting patients who had probable major depression or were anxiety-disorder screen-positive were calculated. RESULTS: The PROMIS scales had good internal reliability, and the MID (as represented by two SEMs) was 2 points for the depression scale and 2.5 points for the anxiety scale. Convergent validity was supported by strong interscale correlations. The optimal screening cutpoint on the 4- to 20-point PROMIS scales appeared to be 8 for both the depression and anxiety scales. CONCLUSIONS: The PROMIS four-item depression and anxiety scales are reasonable options as ultra-brief measures for screening in patients with chronic pain. Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Authors: Ellen L Poleshuck; Matthew J Bair; Kurt Kroenke; Teresa M Damush; Erin E Krebs; Donna E Giles Journal: Gen Hosp Psychiatry Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 3.238
Authors: Karon F Cook; Alyssa M Bamer; Dagmar Amtmann; Ivan R Molton; Mark P Jensen Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2012-03-02 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: John P Houston; Kurt Kroenke; Jonathan R Davidson; Lenard A Adler; Douglas E Faries; Jonna Ahl; Ralph Swindle; Paula T Trzepacz Journal: Postgrad Med Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Laura E Gibbons; Betsy J Feldman; Heidi M Crane; Michael Mugavero; James H Willig; Donald Patrick; Joseph Schumacher; Michael Saag; Mari M Kitahata; Paul K Crane Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2011-03-16 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Thomas Rosemann; Thorsten Körner; Michel Wensing; Jochen Gensichen; Christiane Muth; Stefanie Joos; Joachim Szecsenyi Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2005-07-19 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Vivian M Yeh; Lindsay S Mayberry; Justin M Bachmann; Kenneth A Wallston; Christianne Roumie; Daniel Muñoz; Sunil Kripalani Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-12-18 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Edward L Barnes; Hans H Herfarth; Robert S Sandler; Wenli Chen; Elizabeth Jaeger; Van M Nguyen; Amber R Robb; Michael D Kappelman; Christopher F Martin; Millie D Long Journal: Inflamm Bowel Dis Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 5.325
Authors: Olivier D R van Wulfften Palthe; Stein J Janssen; Jay S Wunder; Peter C Ferguson; Guo Wei; Peter S Rose; Micheal J Yaszemski; Franklin H Sim; Patrick J Boland; John H Healey; Francis J Hornicek; Joseph H Schwab Journal: Spine J Date: 2016-11-14 Impact factor: 4.166
Authors: D M Evon; J Amador; P Stewart; B B Reeve; A S Lok; R K Sterling; A M Di Bisceglie; N Reau; M Serper; S Sarkar; J K Lim; C E Golin; M W Fried Journal: Aliment Pharmacol Ther Date: 2018-01-29 Impact factor: 8.171
Authors: Kurt Kroenke; Jingwei Wu; Zhangsheng Yu; Matthew J Bair; Jacob Kean; Timothy Stump; Patrick O Monahan Journal: Psychosom Med Date: 2016 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 4.312