K Neustadt1, S Deckert2, R Heineck3, C Kopkow2, A Preißler3, R Sabatowski3,4, J Schmitt2, U Kaiser3. 1. Universitäts-SchmerzCentrum, Universitätsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden, Fetscherstr. 74, 01307, Dresden, Deutschland. katrin.neustadt@uniklinikum-dresden.de. 2. Zentrum für Evidenzbasierte Gesundheitsversorgung, Medizinische Fakultät, TU Dresden, Dresden, Deutschland. 3. Universitäts-SchmerzCentrum, Universitätsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden, Fetscherstr. 74, 01307, Dresden, Deutschland. 4. Klinik und Poliklinik für Anästhesiologie und Intensivtherapie, Universitätsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden, Dresden, Deutschland.
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.
BACKGROUND: To assess the efficacy of multimodal pain therapy for chronic painpatients 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 painpatients 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 painpatients 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 painpatients 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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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