A L Kratz1, C Z Kalpakjian2, R A Hanks3. 1. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Michigan, North Campus Research Complex, 2800 Plymouth Rd, Building NCRC B14, Room G218, 325 E. Eisenhower Parkway, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-2800, USA. alkratz@med.umich.edu. 2. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Michigan, North Campus Research Complex, 2800 Plymouth Rd, Building NCRC B14, Room G218, 325 E. Eisenhower Parkway, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-2800, USA. 3. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Rehabilitation Institute of Michigan, Wayne State University, 261 Mack Blvd, Suite 555, Detroit, MI, 48201, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Intensive repeated measures data collection procedures, such as ecological momentary assessment (EMA) and end-of-day (EOD) diaries, are becoming more prominent in pain research. Existing data on the feasibility of such methods is encouraging; however, almost nothing is known about feasibility in clinical populations with significant physical disabilities. Research methodology feasibility is crucial to the inclusion of individuals with physical disability in pain research given the high prevalence and impact of pain in these populations. The aim of this study was to examine study compliance, protocol acceptability, and reactivity of intensive data collection methods in adults with chronic pain and spinal cord injury (SCI). METHODS: Secondary analysis of data from a 7-day EMA and EOD diary study in a sample of 131 community dwelling adults with SCI. RESULTS: Results showed rates of missing data ranged from 18.4 to 22.8% across measures. Participant compliance was related to time of day/presence of audible prompts, mobility aid use, race, and baseline levels of pain and pain interference, with more missing data at wake and bedtimes/no prompts, and for those who used hand-held mobility devices, identified as black/African American, and/or reported higher baseline pain and pain interference. Participants rated the study methodology as generally highly acceptable and expressed willingness to participate in similar studies of much longer duration. There was no evidence of reactivity, defined as temporal shifts in pain or pain interference ratings. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, intensive pain data collection is feasible in persons with SCI with no evidence that the methodology impacts pain intensity or pain interference ratings.
PURPOSE: Intensive repeated measures data collection procedures, such as ecological momentary assessment (EMA) and end-of-day (EOD) diaries, are becoming more prominent in pain research. Existing data on the feasibility of such methods is encouraging; however, almost nothing is known about feasibility in clinical populations with significant physical disabilities. Research methodology feasibility is crucial to the inclusion of individuals with physical disability in pain research given the high prevalence and impact of pain in these populations. The aim of this study was to examine study compliance, protocol acceptability, and reactivity of intensive data collection methods in adults with chronic pain and spinal cord injury (SCI). METHODS: Secondary analysis of data from a 7-day EMA and EOD diary study in a sample of 131 community dwelling adults with SCI. RESULTS: Results showed rates of missing data ranged from 18.4 to 22.8% across measures. Participant compliance was related to time of day/presence of audible prompts, mobility aid use, race, and baseline levels of pain and pain interference, with more missing data at wake and bedtimes/no prompts, and for those who used hand-held mobility devices, identified as black/African American, and/or reported higher baseline pain and pain interference. Participants rated the study methodology as generally highly acceptable and expressed willingness to participate in similar studies of much longer duration. There was no evidence of reactivity, defined as temporal shifts in pain or pain interference ratings. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, intensive pain data collection is feasible in persons with SCI with no evidence that the methodology impacts pain intensity or pain interference ratings.
Authors: Arthur A Stone; Joan E Broderick; Joseph E Schwartz; Saul Shiffman; Leighann Litcher-Kelly; Pamela Calvanese Journal: Pain Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 6.961
Authors: Marjolijn J Sorbi; Sander B Mak; Jan H Houtveen; Annet M Kleiboer; Lorenz J P van Doornen Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2007-12-31 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Daniel S J Costa; Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber; Claudia Rutherford; Margaret-Ann Tait; Madeleine T King Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2021-04-01 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Noelle E Carlozzi; Jenna Freedman; Jonathan P Troost; Traci Carson; Ivan R Molton; Dawn M Ehde; Kayvan Najarian; Jennifer A Miner; Nicholas R Boileau; Anna L Kratz Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2021-08-18 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Noelle E Carlozzi; Stephen Schilling; Jenna Freedman; Claire Z Kalpakjian; Anna L Kratz Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2018-08-02 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Payton Solk; Kara Gavin; Jason Fanning; Whitney Welch; Gillian Lloyd; Alison Cottrell; Anne Nielsen; Cesar A Santa Maria; William Gradishar; Seema A Khan; Swati Kulkarni; Juned Siddique; Siobhan M Phillips Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2019-09-06 Impact factor: 4.147