What Do Providers Want from a Pain Screening Measure Used in Daily Practice?


Journal

Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.)
ISSN: 1526-4637
Titre abrégé: Pain Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100894201

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
01 01 2019
Historique:
pubmed: 8 8 2018
medline: 23 8 2019
entrez: 8 8 2018
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

We aimed to understand providers' experiences and preferences regarding several brief pain screening measures. We collected two waves of data for this analysis. Wave one: We conducted nine focus groups with multidisciplinary Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) providers. Wave two: To understand an emergent theme in wave one, we conducted 15 telephone interviews with prescribing providers where we used a semistructured guide comparing screening measures currently used in VA practices. Using content analysis of the wave two interviews, we evaluated providers' perceptions of important aspects of brief pain screening measures and reported emergent themes. Five emergent themes underlie providers' perceptions of the utility of brief pain screening measures: 1) item abstractness: how bounded and concrete a patient's interpretation of an individual item is; 2) item distinctness: belief in the patient's ability to differentiate between the meaning of various items in a pain measure; 3) item anchoring: presence of a description under each response option making the meaning explicit; 4) item look-back period: the period of time over which patients are asked to remember and comment on their pain; 5) parsimony: identifying the shortest and simplest approach possible to acquire desired information. Overly complex or adaptive screening tools may include information that is ultimately not used by providers. Conversely, overly simplistic pain screening tools may omit information that helps providers understand the impact of pain on patients' lives. As pain is nuanced, complex, and subjective, all screening measures exhibit some limitations. No single pain measure serves all chronic pain patients, and specific contexts or settings may warrant additional specific items.

Identifiants

pubmed: 30085285
pii: 5061854
doi: 10.1093/pm/pny135
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.

Langues

eng

Pagination

68-76

Auteurs

Karleen F Giannitrapani (KF)

VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Center for Innovation to Implementation (Ci2i), Menlo Park, California.

R Thomas Day (RT)

VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Center for Innovation to Implementation (Ci2i), Menlo Park, California.

Azin Azarfar (A)

VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Center for Innovation to Implementation (Ci2i), Menlo Park, California.

Sangeeta C Ahluwalia (SC)

RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California.

Steven Dobscha (S)

VA Portland Health Care System, Center to Improve Veteran Involvement in Care (CIVIC), Portland, Oregon.
Department of Psychiatry, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon.

Karl A Lorenz (KA)

VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Center for Innovation to Implementation (Ci2i), Menlo Park, California.
RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California.
Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH