OBJECTIVE: To assess reliability, validity, and responsiveness of a 29-item short-form version of the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) and a novel “impact score” calculated from those measures. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Rural primary care practices. SUBJECTS: Adults aged ≥ 55 years with chronic musculoskeletal pain, not currently receiving prescription opioids. METHODS: Subjects completed the PROMIS short form at baseline and after 3 months. Patient subsets were compared to assess reliability and responsiveness. Construct validity was tested by comparing baseline scores among patients who were or were not applying for Worker's Compensation; those with higher or lower catastrophizing scores; and those with or without recent falls. Responsiveness was assessed with mean score changes, effect sizes, and standardized response means. RESULTS: Internal consistency was good to excellent, with Cronbach's alpha between 0.81 and 0.95 for all scales. Among patients who rated their pain as stable, test-retest scores at 3 months were around 0.70 for most scales. PROMIS scores were worse among patients seeking or receiving worker's compensation, those with high catastrophizing scores, and those with recent falls. Among patients rating pain as “much less” at 3 months, absolute effect sizes for the various scales ranged from 0.24 (Depression) to 1.93 (Pain Intensity). CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate that the PROMIS short 29-item form may be useful for the study of patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Our findings also support use of the novel “impact score” recommended by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Task Force on Research Standards for Chronic Low Back Pain.
OBJECTIVE: To assess reliability, validity, and responsiveness of a 29-item short-form version of the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) and a novel “impact score” calculated from those measures. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Rural primary care practices. SUBJECTS: Adults aged ≥ 55 years with chronic musculoskeletal pain, not currently receiving prescription opioids. METHODS: Subjects completed the PROMIS short form at baseline and after 3 months. Patient subsets were compared to assess reliability and responsiveness. Construct validity was tested by comparing baseline scores among patients who were or were not applying for Worker's Compensation; those with higher or lower catastrophizing scores; and those with or without recent falls. Responsiveness was assessed with mean score changes, effect sizes, and standardized response means. RESULTS: Internal consistency was good to excellent, with Cronbach's alpha between 0.81 and 0.95 for all scales. Among patients who rated their pain as stable, test-retest scores at 3 months were around 0.70 for most scales. PROMIS scores were worse among patients seeking or receiving worker's compensation, those with high catastrophizing scores, and those with recent falls. Among patients rating pain as “much less” at 3 months, absolute effect sizes for the various scales ranged from 0.24 (Depression) to 1.93 (Pain Intensity). CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate that the PROMIS short 29-item form may be useful for the study of patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Our findings also support use of the novel “impact score” recommended by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Task Force on Research Standards for Chronic Low Back Pain.
Authors: M J Sullivan; B Thorn; J A Haythornthwaite; F Keefe; M Martin; L A Bradley; J C Lefebvre Journal: Clin J Pain Date: 2001-03 Impact factor: 3.442
Authors: Richard A Deyo; Samuel F Dworkin; Dagmar Amtmann; Gunnar Andersson; David Borenstein; Eugene Carragee; John Carrino; Roger Chou; Karon Cook; Anthony DeLitto; Christine Goertz; Partap Khalsa; John Loeser; Sean Mackey; James Panagis; James Rainville; Tor Tosteson; Dennis Turk; Michael Von Korff; Debra K Weiner Journal: J Pain Date: 2014-04-29 Impact factor: 5.820
Authors: Brian Durkin; Jamie Romeiser; A Laurie W Shroyer; Robin Schiller; Jin Bae; Raphael P Davis; Robert Peyster; Helene Benveniste Journal: Pain Med Date: 2013-03-14 Impact factor: 3.750
Authors: Judith A Turner; Deborah Fulton-Kehoe; Gary Franklin; Thomas M Wickizer; Rae Wu Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2003-05-15 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Richa Gawande; My Ngoc To; Elizabeth Pine; Todd Griswold; Timothy B Creedon; Alexandra Brunel; Angela Lozada; Eric B Loucks; Zev Schuman-Olivier Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-12-03 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Anaïs Lacasse; Jean-Sébastien Roy; Alexandre J Parent; Nioushah Noushi; Chúk Odenigbo; Gabrielle Pagé; Nicolas Beaudet; Manon Choinière; Laura S Stone; Mark A Ware Journal: CMAJ Open Date: 2017-03-10
Authors: Kurt Kroenke; Tasneem L Talib; Timothy E Stump; Jacob Kean; David A Haggstrom; Paige DeChant; Kittie R Lake; Madison Stout; Patrick O Monahan Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-04-05 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Karen J Sherman; Robert D Wellman; Rene J Hawkes; Elizabeth A Phelan; Tamsin Lee; Judith A Turner Journal: J Altern Complement Med Date: 2020-02-03 Impact factor: 2.579
Authors: Katrina M Poppert Cordts; Amanda L Stone; Jaimie K Beveridge; Anna C Wilson; Melanie Noel Journal: J Pain Date: 2019-01-16 Impact factor: 5.820
Authors: Polake Rawang; Prawit Janwantanakul; Helena Correia; Mark P Jensen; Rotsalai Kanlayanaphotporn Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2019-11-13 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Chen X Chen; Kurt Kroenke; Timothy Stump; Jacob Kean; Erin E Krebs; Matthew J Bair; Teresa Damush; Patrick O Monahan Journal: J Pain Date: 2018-12-06 Impact factor: 5.820
Authors: Elizabeth S Goldsmith; Brent C Taylor; Nancy Greer; Maureen Murdoch; Roderick MacDonald; Lauren McKenzie; Christina E Rosebush; Timothy J Wilt Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-05 Impact factor: 5.128