Dataset Information

Graded Chronic Pain Scale: Validation of 1-Month Reference Frame.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

The 1-month Graded Chronic Pain Scale (GCPS) commonly used in clinical studies has never been validated. This study compares the GCPS 1-month with the 6 months version for reliability and validity.

Methods

The Validation Project included 521 participants with at least one temporomandibular disorder for cross-sectional data and 74 participants for test-retest data. Internal reliability, stability, and construct validity were used for testing the 1-month version. Comparisons were made between the 2 versions for characteristic pain intensity (CPI), interference, and chronic pain grade (CPG).

Results

For GCPS 1-month, internal consistency for pain intensity and interference was high (Cronbach α=0.87 and 0.94, respectively), and temporal stability was high for CPI (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]=0.91), interference (ICC=0.85), and CPG (weighted κ=0.88). ICC or κ between the 2 versions was 0.78 (CPI), 0.66 (interference), and 0.69 (CPG); high-impact pain, in contrast, was 0.50. Construct validity exhibited higher correlations with predictor variables for 1-month version attributes of CPI, interference, and CPG. Modified Bland-Altman plots indicated that both versions measure CPI well.

Discussion

Overall, reliability of the 1-month GCPS is equal to or better than the 6-months version for pain intensity, disability days, pain interference, CPG, and high-impact pain. However, consistency between versions is lower for measures of disability days and interference, and for the derived measures of CPG and high-impact pain; highly skewed distributions and increasing disagreement in reported status over the time periods affect the measures of function. Therefore, we recommend that GCPS-1 month only be used to calculate pain intensity and pain interference.

SUBMITTER: Sharma S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8727576 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Graded Chronic Pain Scale: Validation of 1-Month Reference Frame.

Sharma Sonia S Kallen Michael A MA Ohrbach Richard R

The Clinical journal of pain 20211122 2

<h4>Objectives</h4>The 1-month Graded Chronic Pain Scale (GCPS) commonly used in clinical studies has never been validated. This study compares the GCPS 1-month with the 6 months version for reliability and validity.<h4>Methods</h4>The Validation Project included 521 participants with at least one temporomandibular disorder for cross-sectional data and 74 participants for test-retest data. Internal reliability, stability, and construct validity were used for testing the 1-month version. Comparis ...[more]

PMID: 34803153

Similar Datasets

Project description:Treatment of chronic lower back pain (CLBP) should be stratified for best medical and economic outcome. To improve the targeting of potential participants for exclusive therapy offers from payers, Freytag et al. developed a tool to classify back pain chronicity classes (CC) based on claim data. The aim of this study was to evaluate the criterion validity of the model. Administrative claim data and self-reported patient information from 3,506 participants (2014-2021) in a private health insurance health management programme in Germany were used to validate the tool. Sensitivity, specificity, and Matthews' correlation coefficient (MCC) were calculated comparing the prediction with actual grades based on von Korff's graded chronic pain scale (GCPS). The secondary outcome was an updated view on direct health care costs (€) of patients with back pain (BP) grouped by GCPS. Results showed a fair correlation between predicted CC and actual GCPS grades. A total of 69.7% of all cases were correctly classified. Sensitivity and specificity rates of 54.6 and 76.4% underlined precision. Correlation between CC and GCPS with an MCC of 0.304 also indicated a fair relationship between prediction and observation. Cost data could be clearly grouped by GCPS: the higher the grade, the higher the costs and the use of health care. This was the first study to compare the predicted severity of BP using claim data with the actual severity of BP by GCPS. Based on the results, the usage of CC as a single tool to determine who receives CLBP treatment cannot be recommended. CC is a good tool to segment candidates for specific types of intervention in BP. However, it cannot replace a medical screening at the beginning of an intervention, as the rate of false negatives is too high. Trial registration The study was conducted using routinely collected data from an intervention, which was previously evaluated and registered retrospectively in the German Registry of Clinical Trials under DRKS00015463 (04/09/2018). Informed consent and the self-reported questionnaire have remained unchanged since the study and, therefore, are still valid according to the ethics proposal.

Project description:Chronic pain is a prevalent issue worldwide and is a significant contributor to human suffering and disability. The Graded Chronic Pain Scale-Revised has exhibited favorable reliability and validity. However, its applicability yet to be explored in China. We aimed to create a simplified Chinese version of the Graded Chronic Pain Scale-Revised for chronic pain patients by conducting cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric evaluation. This study employs a two- phase design. In phase 1, the Graded Chronic Pain Scale-Revised was cross-culturally translated and adapted in accordance with international guidelines. In phase 2, the simplified Chinese version of the Graded Chronic Pain Scale-Revised was administered to 417 participants along with Numerical Rating Scale to assess its psychometric properties. The final analysis consisted of data from 376 participants. The scale had a Cronbach's α coefficient of 0.944. Moreover, the scale exhibited excellent content validity and was divided into two dimensions: identifying high impact chronic pain; and the Pain, Enjoyment, and General Activities subscale. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses revealed that these dimensions had a good model fit. Additionally, the simplified Chinese version of the Graded Chronic Pain Scale-Revised demonstrated good convergent and discriminant validity. The receiver operating characteristic curve demonstrated that grades 2 and 3 had a good predictive effect on limiting participants' work ability, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was equal to 0.91. The present study demonstrates the successful adaptation of the Graded Chronic Pain Scale-Revised into Simplified Chinese, with the revised version exhibiting favorable psychometric properties. This scale addresses the shortcomings of domestic chronic pain grading assessment tools, providing a valuable instrument for evaluating the severity of chronic pain in Chinese clinical practice and serving as a reference and basis for other research related to chronic pain.

Project description:Quasi-experimental clinical trial.This study compared outcomes from graded exercise and graded exposure activity prescriptions for patients participating in a multidisciplinary rehabilitation program for chronic low back pain. Our primary purpose was to investigate whether pain and disability outcomes differed based on treatment received (graded exercise or graded exposure). Our secondary purpose was to investigate if changes in selected psychological factors were associated with pain and disability outcomes.Behavioral interventions have been advocated for decreasing pain and disability from low back pain, yet relatively few comparative studies have been reported in the literature.Consecutive sample with chronic low back pain recruited over a 16-month period from an outpatient chronic pain clinic. Patients received physical therapy supplemented with either graded exercise (n=15) or graded exposure (n=18) principles. Graded exercise included general therapeutic activities and was progressed with a quota-based system. Graded exposure included specific activities that were feared due to back pain and was progressed with a hierarchical exposure paradigm. Psychological measures were pain-related fear (Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire, Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia, Fear of Pain Questionnaire), pain catastrophizing (Coping Strategies Questionnaire), and depressive symptoms (Beck Depression Inventory). Primary outcome measures were pain intensity (visual analog scale) and self-report of disability (modified Oswestry Disability Questionnaire).Statistically significant improvements (P<.01) were observed for pain intensity and disability at discharge. The rate of improvement did not differ based on behavioral intervention received (P>.05 for these comparisons). Overall, 50% of patients met criterion for minimally important change for pain intensity, while 30% met this criterion for disability. Change in depressive symptoms was associated with change in pain intensity, while change in pain catastrophizing was associated with change in disability.Physical therapy supplemented with graded exercise or graded exposure resulted in equivalent clinical outcomes for pain intensity and disability. The overall treatment effects were modest in this setting. Instead of being associated with a specific behavioral intervention, reductions in pain and disability were associated with reductions in depressive symptoms and pain catastrophizing, respectively.Therapy, level 2b–.

Dataset Information

Graded Chronic Pain Scale: Validation of 1-Month Reference Frame.

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Publications

Graded Chronic Pain Scale: Validation of 1-Month Reference Frame.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets