Description: The Neck Pain and Disability Scale (NPDS or NPAD) is a questionnaire aiming to quantify neck pain and disability.1 It is a patient-reported outcome measure for patients with any type of neck pain, of any duration, with or without injury.1,2 It consists of 20 items: three related to pain intensity, four related to emotion and cognition, four related to mobility of the neck, eight related to activity limitations and participation restrictions and one on medication.1,3 Patients respond to each item on a 0 to 5 visual analogue scale of 10 cm. There is also a nine-item short version.4 Feasibility: The NPDS is published and available online (https://mountainphysiotherapy.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Neck-Pain-and-Disability-Scale.pdf).1 The NPDS is an easy to use questionnaire that can be completed within 5 to 8 minutes.1,5 There is no training needed to administer the instrument but its validity is compromised if the questionnaire must be read to the patient.2 Higher scores indicate higher severity (0 for normal functioning to 5 for the worst possible situation ‘your’ pain problem has caused you).2 The total score is the sum of scores on the 20 items (0 to 100).1 The maximum acceptable number of missing answers is three (15%).4 Two studies found a minimum important change of 10 points (sensitivity 0.93; specificity 0.83) and 11.5 points (sensibility 0.74; specificity 0.70), respectively.6,7 The NPDS is available in English, Dutch, Finnish, French, German, Italian, Hindi, Iranian, Korean, Turkish, Japanese and Thai. Reliability and validity: Two systematic reviews have evaluated the clinimetric properties of 11 of the translated versions.5,8 The Finnish, German and Italian translations were particularly recommended for use in clinical practice. Face validity was established and content validity was confirmed by an adequate reflection of all aspects of neck pain and disability.1,8 Regarding structural validity, the NPDS is a multidimensional scale, with moderate evidence that the NPDS has a three-factor structure (with explained variance ranging from 63 to 78%): neck dysfunction related to general activities; neck pain and neck-specific function; and cognitive-emotional-behavioural functioning. 4,5,9 A recent overview of four systematic reviews found moderate-quality evidence of high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alphas ranging from 0.86 to 0.93 for the various factors).10 Excellent test-retest reliability was found (ICC of 0.97); however, the studies were considered to be of low quality.3,10 Construct validity (hypotheses-testing) seems adequate when the NPDS is compared with the Neck Disability Index and the Global Assessment of Change with moderate to strong correlations (r = 0.52 to 0.86), based on limited moderate-quality studies.3,11,12 One systematic review reported good responsiveness to change in patients (r = 0.59).12
DOCUMENT
AIM: To understand the steps in the decision-making process regarding pain assessment and management for people living with dementia from the perspectives and experiences of people with dementia, formal and informal carers.METHODS: A systematic review was conducted. Seven English databases were searched, including PubMed, Psychological Information Database, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science, and ProQuest, using synonyms and derivatives for "dementia", "cognitive impairment", "pain", "pain assessment", "pain management", "decision", "decision support", and "decision-making".RESULTS: Twenty-eight studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Pain assessment and management in dementia are complex, successive, and collaborative processes carried out by different individuals over a period based on one's understanding of the person with dementia but with high uncertainty. Pain assessment involves a certain degree of guesswork, while pain management is a trial-and-error process.CONCLUSION: More pragmatic approaches are needed to overcome challenges, including uncertainty and decisional conflicts.
DOCUMENT
Purpose To empirically define the concept of burden of neck pain. The lack of a clear understanding of this construct from the perspective of persons with neck pain and care providers hampers adequate measurement of this burden. An additional aim was to compare the conceptual model obtained with the frequently used Neck Disability Index (NDI). Methods Concept mapping, combining qualitative (nominal group technique and group consensus) and quantitative research methods (cluster analysis and multidimensional scaling), was applied to groups of persons with neck pain (n = 3) and professionals treating persons with neck pain (n = 2). Group members generated statements, which were organized into concept maps. Group members achieved consensus about the number and description of domains and the researchers then generated an overall mind map covering the full breadth of the burden of neck pain. Results Concept mapping revealed 12 domains of burden of neck pain: impaired mobility neck, neck pain, fatigue/concentration, physical complaints, psychological aspects/consequences, activities of daily living, social participation, financial consequences, difficult to treat/difficult to diagnose, difference of opinion with care providers, incomprehension by social environment, and how person with neck pain deal with complaints. All ten items of the NDI could be linked to the mind map, but the NDI measures only part of the burden of neck pain. Conclusion This study revealed the relevant domains for the burden of neck pain from the viewpoints of persons with neck pain and their care providers. These results can guide the identification of existing measurements instruments for each domain or the development of new ones to measure the burden of neck pain.
DOCUMENT
Background: Persons with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities (PIMD) are vulnerable when it comes to experiencing pain. Reliable assessment of pain-related behaviour in these persons is difficult. Aim To determine how pain items can be reliably scored in adults with PIMD.Methods: We developed an instruction protocol for the assessment of pain-related behaviour in four phases. We used videos of 57 adults with PIMD during potentially painful situations. The items were assessed for inter-rater reliability (Cohen's kappa or percentage of agreement).Results: The developed instruction protocol appeared to be adequate. Twelve items had satisfactory inter-rater reliability (n = 9: .30–1.00; n = 3: 85%–100%).Discussion: Calibrating and adjustments to the instructions and item set appeared to be crucial to reliably score 12 items in adults with PIMD. Further research should focus on creating an assessment instrument based on these reliably scored items.
DOCUMENT
Studies about clinical pain in schizophrenia are rare. Conclusions on pain sensitivity in people with schizophrenia are primarily based on experimental pain studies. This review attempts to assess clinical pain, that is, everyday pain without experimental manipulation, in people with schizophrenia. PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase.com, and Cochrane were searched with terms related to schizophrenia and pain. Methodological quality was assessed with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Fourteen studies were included. Persons with schizophrenia appear to have a diminished prevalence of pain, as well as a lower intensity of pain when compared to persons with other psychiatric diseases. When compared to healthy controls, both prevalence and intensity of pain appear to be diminished for persons with schizophrenia. However, it was found that this effect only applies to pain with an apparent medical cause, such as headache after lumbar puncture. For less severe situations, prevalence and intensity of pain appears to be comparable between people with schizophrenia and controls. Possible underlying mechanisms are discussed. Knowledge about pain in schizophrenia is important for adequate pain treatment in clinical practice. Perspective This review presents a valuable insight into clinical pain in people with schizophrenia
DOCUMENT
OBJECTIVES: The Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS) and Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) are behavioral pain assessment tools for sedated and unconscious critically ill patients. The aim of this study was to compare the reliability, internal consistency, and discriminant validation of the BPS and the CPOT simultaneously in mechanically ventilated patients after cardiac surgery.DESIGN: A prospective, observational cohort study.SETTING: A 20-bed closed-format intensive care unit with mixed medical, surgical, and cardiac surgery patients in a teaching hospital in Amsterdam, The Netherlands.PARTICIPANTS: The study comprised 72 consecutive intubated and mechanically ventilated patients after cardiac surgery who were not able to self-report pain.MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Two nurses assessed the BPS and CPOT simultaneously and independently at the following 4 moments: rest, a nonpainful procedure (oral care), rest, and a painful procedure (turning). Both scores showed a significant increase of 2 points between rest and turning. The median BPS score of nurse 1 showed a significant increase of 1 point between rest and the nonpainful procedure (oral care), whereas both median CPOT scores did not change. The interrater reliability of the BPS and CPOT showed fair-to-good agreement of 0.74 overall. During the periods of rest 1 and rest 2, values ranged from 0.24 to 0.46. Cronbach's alpha values for the BPS were 0.62 (nurse 1) and 0.59 (nurse 2) compared with 0.65 and 0.58, respectively, for the CPOT.CONCLUSIONS: The BPS and CPOT are reliable and valid pain assessment tools in a daily clinical setting. However, the discriminant validation of both scores seems less satisfactory in sedated or agitated patients and this topic requires further investigation.
DOCUMENT
Objective: To explore predictors of dropout of patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain from an interdisciplinary chronic pain management programme, and to develop and validate a multivariable prediction model, based on the Extended Common- Sense Model of Self-Regulation (E-CSM). Methods: In this prospective cohort study consecutive patients with chronic pain were recruited and followed up (July 2013 to May 2015). Possible associations between predictors and dropout were explored by univariate logistic regression analyses. Subsequently, multiple logistic regression analyses were executed to determine the model that best predicted dropout. Results: Of 188 patients who initiated treatment, 35 (19%) were classified as dropouts. The mean age of the dropout group was 47.9 years (standard deviation 9.9). Based on the univariate logistic regression analyses 7 predictors of the 18 potential predictors for dropout were eligible for entry into the multiple logistic regression analyses. Finally, only pain catastrophizing was identified as a significant predictor. Conclusion: Patients with chronic pain who catastrophize were more prone to dropout from this chronic pain management programme. However, due to the exploratory nature of this study no firm conclusions can be drawn about the predictive value of the E-CSM of Self-Regulation for dropout.
DOCUMENT
Phantom limb pain following amputation is highly prevalent as it affects up to 80% of amputees. Many amputees suffer from phantom limb pain for many years and experience major limitations in daily routines and quality of life. Conventional pharmacological interventions often have negative side-effects and evidence regarding their long-term efficacy is low. Central malplasticity such as the invasion of areas neighbouring the cortical representation of the amputated limb contributes to the occurrence and maintenance of phantom limb pain. In this context, alternative, non-pharmacological interventions such as mirror therapy that are thought to target these central mechanisms have gained increasing attention in the treatment of phantom limb pain. However, a standardized evidence-based treatment protocol for mirror therapy in patients with phantom limb pain is lacking, and evidence for its effectiveness is still low. Furthermore, given the chronic nature of phantom limb pain and suggested central malplasticity, published studies proposed that patients should self-deliver mirror therapy over several weeks to months to achieve sustainable effects. To achieve this training intensity, patients need to perform self-delivered exercises on a regular basis, which could be facilitated though the use of information and communication technology such as telerehabilitation. However, little is known about potential benefits of using telerehabilitation in patients with phantom limb pain, and controlled clinical trials investigating effects are lacking. The present thesis presents the findings from the ‘PAtient Centered Telerehabilitation’ (PACT) project, which was conducted in three consecutive phases: 1) creating a theoretical foundation; 2) modelling the intervention; and 3) evaluating the intervention in clinical practice. The objectives formulated for the three phases of the PACT project were: 1) to conduct a systematic review of the literature regarding important clinical aspects of mirror therapy. It focused on the evidence of applying mirror therapy in patients with stroke, complex regional pain syndrome and phantom limb pain. 2) to design and develop a clinical framework and a user-centred telerehabilitation for mirror therapy in patients with phantom limb pain following lower limb amputation. 3) to evaluate the effects of the clinical framework for mirror therapy and the additional effects of the teletreatment in patients with phantom limb pain. It also investigated whether the interventions were delivered by patients and therapists as intended.
DOCUMENT
PURPOSE: To analyse how decisions to dichotomise the frequency and impediment of phantom pain into absent and present influence the outcome of studies by performing a sensitivity analysis on an existing database.METHOD: Five hundred and thirty-six subjects were recruited from the database of an orthopaedic workshop and filled out a questionnaire in which the following items were assessed: demographics, side, date, level and reason of amputation, presence and frequency of phantom sensations, phantom pain and stump pain, and impediment due to phantom pain.RESULTS: The prevalence of phantom pain ranged from 7-72% when different cut off points for the frequency of phantom pain were applied. The significance of the various risk factors for the prevalence of phantom pain changed when different cut off points were applied. Only stump pain and phantom sensations were significant risk factors for all cut off points. Risk factors for the impediment of phantom pain changed when different cut off points were applied and these risk factors were different from those for the prevalence of phantom pain.CONCLUSION: The choice of cut off points influences the outcome of phantom pain studies considerably. This study provides some insight into the differences in prevalence and risk factors found in literature.
DOCUMENT
BACKGROUND: The Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (QBPDS) has been translated into different languages, and several studies on its measurement properties have been done. PURPOSE: The purpose of this review was to critically appraise and compare the measurement properties, when possible, of all language versions of the QBPDS by systematically reviewing the methodological quality and results of the available studies. METHOD: Bibliographic databases (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO) were searched for articles with the key words "Quebec," "back," "pain," and "disability" in combination with a methodological search filter for finding studies on measurement properties concerning the development or evaluation of the measurement properties of the QBPDS in patients with nonspecific low back pain. Assessment of the methodological quality was carried out by the reviewers using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist for both the original language version of the QBPDS in English and French and all translated versions. The results of the measurement properties were rated based on criteria proposed by Terwee et al. RESULTS: The search strategy resulted in identification of 1,436 publications, and 27 articles were included in the systematic review. There was limited-to-moderate evidence of good reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the QBPDS for the different language versions, but for no language version was evidence available for all measurement properties. CONCLUSION: For research and clinical practice, caution is advised when using the QBPDS to measure disability in patients with nonspecific low back pain. Strong evidence is lacking on all measurement properties for each language version of the QBPDS.
DOCUMENT
