Divya Shridharmurthy1,2, Sara Khan1, Kate L Lapane1,2, Esther Yi3, Jonathan Kay1,4, Shao-Hsien Liu5,6. 1. Division of Epidemiology, Department of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, UMass Chan Medical School, 368 Plantation Street, Worcester, MA, 01605, USA. 2. Clinical and Population Health Research Program, Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, UMass Chan Medical School, 55 Lake Avenue North, Worcester, MA, 01655, USA. 3. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, East Hanover, NJ, 07936, USA. 4. Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, UMass Chan Medical School, 368 Plantation Street, Worcester, MA, 01605, USA. 5. Division of Epidemiology, Department of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, UMass Chan Medical School, 368 Plantation Street, Worcester, MA, 01605, USA. shaohsien.liu@umassmed.edu. 6. Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, UMass Chan Medical School, 368 Plantation Street, Worcester, MA, 01605, USA. shaohsien.liu@umassmed.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To further refine the wording of screening questions and examine their face validity through cognitive interviews with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and chronic mechanical back pain patients. METHODS: In-depth, semi-structured cognitive interviews were conducted with 30 patients (10 axSpA; 20 chronic mechanical back pain patients) to assess the face validity and comprehensibility of the screening questions. The interview protocol focused on 12 questions/domains including participants' feedback/thoughts on the duration of suffering from back pain, age at onset of back pain, pace of back pain development, improvement of pain with movement or rest, nocturnal back pain improving upon awakening, pain in other parts of the body, responsiveness of pain to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) use, history of autoimmune conditions, and domains such as sleep, sitting, and stiffness. The Flesch-Kincaid grade level and Flesch reading ease scores were then analyzed for the revised versions of screening questions. RESULTS: Participants preferred questions that allowed them to provide more details regarding the frequency of their symptoms. Questions were refined for clarity and eliminated if participants considered them to be irrelevant (e.g., NSAIDs). Two sample screeners were derived from twelve questions each with an overall reading grade of 7.5 and reading ease of 65.7%. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to design a screening tool that is accessible to most (e.g., reading level) and clear to individuals with back pain. An evidence-based approach to demonstrate the validity of the screening tool will be critical for it to be implemented widely into clinical practice. Key Points • Our study developed two sample screeners that are clear to individuals with back pain and accessible to most with an overall Flesch-Kincaid reading grade of 7.5 and Flesch reading ease of 65.7%. • Questions that were considered irrelevant to participants were eliminated such as responsiveness of pain to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID). • It is feasible to design a screening tool that is accessible to most (e.g., reading level) and clear to individuals with back pain.
OBJECTIVE: To further refine the wording of screening questions and examine their face validity through cognitive interviews with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and chronic mechanical back pain patients. METHODS: In-depth, semi-structured cognitive interviews were conducted with 30 patients (10 axSpA; 20 chronic mechanical back pain patients) to assess the face validity and comprehensibility of the screening questions. The interview protocol focused on 12 questions/domains including participants' feedback/thoughts on the duration of suffering from back pain, age at onset of back pain, pace of back pain development, improvement of pain with movement or rest, nocturnal back pain improving upon awakening, pain in other parts of the body, responsiveness of pain to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) use, history of autoimmune conditions, and domains such as sleep, sitting, and stiffness. The Flesch-Kincaid grade level and Flesch reading ease scores were then analyzed for the revised versions of screening questions. RESULTS: Participants preferred questions that allowed them to provide more details regarding the frequency of their symptoms. Questions were refined for clarity and eliminated if participants considered them to be irrelevant (e.g., NSAIDs). Two sample screeners were derived from twelve questions each with an overall reading grade of 7.5 and reading ease of 65.7%. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to design a screening tool that is accessible to most (e.g., reading level) and clear to individuals with back pain. An evidence-based approach to demonstrate the validity of the screening tool will be critical for it to be implemented widely into clinical practice. Key Points • Our study developed two sample screeners that are clear to individuals with back pain and accessible to most with an overall Flesch-Kincaid reading grade of 7.5 and Flesch reading ease of 65.7%. • Questions that were considered irrelevant to participants were eliminated such as responsiveness of pain to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID). • It is feasible to design a screening tool that is accessible to most (e.g., reading level) and clear to individuals with back pain.
Authors: M Rudwaleit; D van der Heijde; R Landewé; J Listing; N Akkoc; J Brandt; J Braun; C T Chou; E Collantes-Estevez; M Dougados; F Huang; J Gu; M A Khan; Y Kirazli; W P Maksymowych; H Mielants; I J Sørensen; S Ozgocmen; E Roussou; R Valle-Oñate; U Weber; J Wei; J Sieper Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2009-03-17 Impact factor: 19.103
Authors: Miranda van Lunteren; Robert Landewé; Camilla Fongen; Roberta Ramonda; Désirée van der Heijde; Floris A van Gaalen Journal: J Rheumatol Date: 2020-05-15 Impact factor: 4.666
Authors: Kate L Lapane; Divya Shridharmurthy; Sara Khan; Daniel Lindstrom; Ariel Beccia; Esther Yi; Jonathan Kay; Catherine Dube; Shao-Hsien Liu Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-05-24 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Catherine E Dube; Kate L Lapane; Katarina A Ferrucci; Ariel L Beccia; Sara K Khan; Esther Yi; Jonathan Kay; Kristine A Kuhn; Alexis Ogdie; Shao-Hsien Liu Journal: Rheumatol Ther Date: 2021-05-31
Authors: Divya Shridharmurthy; Kate L Lapane; Sara Khan; Esther Yi; Jonggyu Baek; Jonathan Kay; Shao-Hsien Liu Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-07-08 Impact factor: 3.752