Paul A Pilkonis1, Lan Yu1,2, Nathan E Dodds1, Kelly L Johnston1, Suzanne M Lawrence1, Thomas F Hilton3, Dennis C Daley1, Ashwin A Patkar4,5, Dennis McCarty6. 1. Departments of Psychiatry. 2. Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 3. National Institute on Drug Abuse, Indian Harbour Beach, Florida. 4. Department of Psychiatry, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina. 5. Department of Community and Family Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina. 6. School of Public Health, Oregon Health and Science University and Portland State University, Portland, Oregon, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: There is a need to monitor patients receiving prescription opioids to detect possible signs of abuse. To address this need, we developed and calibrated an item bank for severity of abuse of prescription pain medication as part of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS ® ). METHODS: Comprehensive literature searches yielded an initial bank of 5,310 items relevant to substance use and abuse, including abuse of prescription pain medication, from over 80 unique instruments. After qualitative item analysis (i.e., focus groups, cognitive interviewing, expert review, and item revision), 25 items for abuse of prescribed pain medication were included in field testing. Items were written in a first-person, past-tense format, with a three-month time frame and five response options reflecting frequency or severity. The calibration sample included 448 respondents, 367 from the general population (ascertained through an internet panel) and 81 from community treatment programs participating in the National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network. RESULTS: A final bank of 22 items was calibrated using the two-parameter graded response model from item response theory. A seven-item static short form was also developed. The test information curve showed that the PROMIS ® item bank for abuse of prescription pain medication provided substantial information in a broad range of severity. CONCLUSION: The initial psychometric characteristics of the item bank support its use as a computerized adaptive test or short form, with either version providing a brief, precise, and efficient measure relevant to both clinical and community samples.
OBJECTIVE: There is a need to monitor patients receiving prescription opioids to detect possible signs of abuse. To address this need, we developed and calibrated an item bank for severity of abuse of prescription pain medication as part of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS ® ). METHODS: Comprehensive literature searches yielded an initial bank of 5,310 items relevant to substance use and abuse, including abuse of prescription pain medication, from over 80 unique instruments. After qualitative item analysis (i.e., focus groups, cognitive interviewing, expert review, and item revision), 25 items for abuse of prescribed pain medication were included in field testing. Items were written in a first-person, past-tense format, with a three-month time frame and five response options reflecting frequency or severity. The calibration sample included 448 respondents, 367 from the general population (ascertained through an internet panel) and 81 from community treatment programs participating in the National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network. RESULTS: A final bank of 22 items was calibrated using the two-parameter graded response model from item response theory. A seven-item static short form was also developed. The test information curve showed that the PROMIS ® item bank for abuse of prescription pain medication provided substantial information in a broad range of severity. CONCLUSION: The initial psychometric characteristics of the item bank support its use as a computerized adaptive test or short form, with either version providing a brief, precise, and efficient measure relevant to both clinical and community samples.
Authors: Daniel J Buysse; Lan Yu; Douglas E Moul; Anne Germain; Angela Stover; Nathan E Dodds; Kelly L Johnston; Melissa A Shablesky-Cade; Paul A Pilkonis Journal: Sleep Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Stephen F Butler; Simon H Budman; Kathrine C Fernandez; Brian Houle; Christine Benoit; Nathaniel Katz; Robert N Jamison Journal: Pain Date: 2007-05-09 Impact factor: 6.961
Authors: Laura L Adams; Robert J Gatchel; Richard C Robinson; Peter Polatin; Noor Gajraj; Martin Deschner; Carl Noe Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Dennis A Revicki; Wen-Hung Chen; Neesha Harnam; Karon F Cook; Dagmar Amtmann; Leigh F Callahan; Mark P Jensen; Francis J Keefe Journal: Pain Date: 2009-08-15 Impact factor: 6.961
Authors: Gadi Gilam; John A Sturgeon; Dokyoung S You; Ajay D Wasan; Beth D Darnall; Sean C Mackey Journal: Pain Med Date: 2020-02-01 Impact factor: 3.750
Authors: Dokyoung Sophia You; Jennifer M Hah; Sophie Collins; Maisa S Ziadni; Ben W Domingue; Karon F Cook; Sean C Mackey Journal: Pain Med Date: 2019-10-01 Impact factor: 3.750
Authors: Diane Flynn; Linda H Eaton; Dale J Langford; Nicholas Ieronimakis; Honor McQuinn; Richard O Burney; Samuel L Holmes; Ardith Z Doorenbos Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2018-08-24 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Mari A Griffioen; Joseph Glutting; Robert V O'Toole; Angela R Starkweather; Debra Lyon; Susan G Dorsey; Cynthia L Renn Journal: Nurs Res Date: 2020 Mar/Apr Impact factor: 2.381
Authors: Dokyoung S You; Karon F Cook; Benjamin W Domingue; Maisa S Ziadni; Jennifer M Hah; Beth D Darnall; Sean C Mackey Journal: Pain Med Date: 2021-07-25 Impact factor: 3.750
Authors: Jonathan S Ellison; Matthew Lorenzo; Hunter Beck; Ruth Beck; David I Chu; Christopher Forrest; Jing Huang; Amy Kratchman; Anna Kurth; Laura Kurth; Michael Kurtz; Thomas Lendvay; Renae Sturm; Gregory Tasian Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-04-05 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Gabrielle Hettie; Chinwe Nwaneshiudu; Maisa S Ziadni; Beth D Darnall; Sean C Mackey; Dokyoung S You Journal: Subst Use Misuse Date: 2021-08-09 Impact factor: 2.362