Literature DB >> 27844156

[Patient perspectives in outcome research : Development of a focus group concept for collating patient perspectives on determination of effectiveness of multimodal pain therapy - A pilot study].

K Neustadt1, S Deckert2, R Heineck3, C Kopkow2, A Preißler3, R Sabatowski3,4, J Schmitt2, U Kaiser3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: To assess the efficacy of multimodal pain therapy for chronic pain patients it is necessary to use suitable outcome domains as well as reliable and valid measurement instruments. Using pain intensity as an example, however, it is shown that there are critical issues with respect to suitability for chronic pain patients and the quality (e.g. content validity, feasibility and interpretability) of commonly used measurement instruments.
METHOD: A focus group concept was designed to discuss the construct of pain intensity and common measurement instruments with chronic pain patients who underwent multimodal pain therapy. The focus group concept was tested in two pilot groups (N = 10) where eight issues previously established in guidelines were discussed.
RESULTS: The results of the pilot studies affirmed that the construct of pain intensity as well as the measurement instruments must be critically considered when applied to chronic pain patients and the effectiveness of multimodal pain therapy. The concept of patient focus groups proved to be a suitable method for patient participation. Integrating patients should be considered not only in discussions of existing pain scales but also in developing new measurement instruments.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Content validity; Focus groups; Pain intensity; Patient participation; Qualitative research

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 27844156     DOI: 10.1007/s00482-016-0171-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Schmerz        ISSN: 0932-433X            Impact factor:   1.107


  18 in total

1.  The measurement of clinical pain intensity: a comparison of six methods.

Authors:  Mark P Jensen; Paul Karoly; Sanford Braver
Journal:  Pain       Date:  1986-10       Impact factor: 6.961

Review 2.  OMERACT conference on outcome measures in rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials: introduction.

Authors:  P Tugwell; M Boers
Journal:  J Rheumatol       Date:  1993-03       Impact factor: 4.666

3.  Simple pain rating scales hide complex idiosyncratic meanings.

Authors:  Amanda C de Williams; Huw Talfryn Oakley Davies; Yasmin Chadury
Journal:  Pain       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 6.961

Review 4.  Core outcome domains for chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations.

Authors:  Dennis C Turk; Robert H Dworkin; Robert R Allen; Nicholas Bellamy; Nancy Brandenburg; Daniel B Carr; Charles Cleeland; Raymond Dionne; John T Farrar; Bradley S Galer; David J Hewitt; Alejandro R Jadad; Nathaniel P Katz; Lynn D Kramer; Donald C Manning; Cynthia G McCormick; Michael P McDermott; Patrick McGrath; Steve Quessy; Bob A Rappaport; James P Robinson; Mike A Royal; Lee Simon; Joseph W Stauffer; Wendy Stein; Jane Tollett; James Witter
Journal:  Pain       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 6.961

Review 5.  [Multimodal pain therapy: principles and indications].

Authors:  B Arnold; T Brinkschmidt; H-R Casser; I Gralow; D Irnich; K Klimczyk; G Müller; B Nagel; M Pfingsten; M Schiltenwolf; R Sittl; W Söllner
Journal:  Schmerz       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 1.107

6.  Identifying important outcome domains for chronic pain clinical trials: an IMMPACT survey of people with pain.

Authors:  Dennis C Turk; Robert H Dworkin; Dennis Revicki; Gale Harding; Laurie B Burke; David Cella; Charles S Cleeland; Penney Cowan; John T Farrar; Sharon Hertz; Mitchell B Max; Bob A Rappaport
Journal:  Pain       Date:  2007-10-15       Impact factor: 6.961

Review 7.  A systematic review of the outcomes reported in multimodal pain therapy for chronic pain.

Authors:  S Deckert; U Kaiser; C Kopkow; F Trautmann; R Sabatowski; J Schmitt
Journal:  Eur J Pain       Date:  2015-05-29       Impact factor: 3.931

8.  The Harmonizing Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) roadmap: a methodological framework to develop core sets of outcome measurements in dermatology.

Authors:  Jochen Schmitt; Christian Apfelbacher; Phyllis I Spuls; Kim S Thomas; Eric L Simpson; Masutaka Furue; Joanne Chalmers; Hywel C Williams
Journal:  J Invest Dermatol       Date:  2014-09-04       Impact factor: 8.551

9.  Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to consider.

Authors:  Paula R Williamson; Douglas G Altman; Jane M Blazeby; Mike Clarke; Declan Devane; Elizabeth Gargon; Peter Tugwell
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2012-08-06       Impact factor: 2.279

Review 10.  Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative: protocol for an international Delphi study to achieve consensus on how to select outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in a 'core outcome set'.

Authors:  Cecilia A C Prinsen; Sunita Vohra; Michael R Rose; Susanne King-Jones; Sana Ishaque; Zafira Bhaloo; Denise Adams; Caroline B Terwee
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2014-06-25       Impact factor: 2.279

View more
  2 in total

1.  [What does pain intensity mean from the patient perspective? : A qualitative study on the patient perspective of pain intensity as an outcome parameter in treatment evaluation and on the interpretability of pain intensity measurements].

Authors:  K Neustadt; S Deckert; C Kopkow; A Preißler; B Bosse; C Funke; L Jacobi; P Mattenklodt; B Nagel; P Seidel; R Sittl; E Steffen; R Sabatowski; J Schmitt; U Kaiser
Journal:  Schmerz       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 1.107

2.  Validation of a core patient-reported-outcome measure set for operationalizing success in multimodal pain therapy: useful for depicting long-term success?

Authors:  Carolin Donath; Christa Geiß; Christoph Schön
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2018-02-17       Impact factor: 2.655

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.