The functional barometer –a self-report questionnaire in accordance with the international classification of functioning, disability and health for pain related problems; validity and patient-observer comparisons

BMC Health Services Research

Elisabeth Svensson²  Jan-Rickard Norrefalk¹ 

[1] Division of Rehabilitation Medicine, Department of Public Health Sciences, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden;Department of Statistics, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden

关键词: Validity;    Rehabilitation;    Questionnaire;    Patient-professional disagreement;    Pain;    Ordinal data;    ICF;    Disagreement measures;   

Others  :  1132676
DOI  :  10.1186/1472-6963-14-187

 received in 2013-10-02, accepted in 2014-04-15,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health, (ICF) provides a unified, international standardized framework for describing and classifying health and health-related functioning and disability. Based on an ICF core sets the Functional Barometer, (FB), was developed for assessments of perceived pain-related problems with functions, activity and quality-of-life by patients suffering from long-term pain. The aim was to evaluate the construct validity, and to compare the assessments of a patient’s problems from the perspectives of the patient and of the examining professional when using the validated FB and corresponding ICF-classification form, respectively.

Methods

Patients with long-term pain for more than 3 months that visited one of four pain clinics during specified time periods of data collections were eligible. The self-report Balanced Inventory for Spinal disorders was used for validation of the FB. Correspondingly to the validated FB an ICF-classification form for professional’s assessment was developed. The data sets for these inter-scale and the patient-professional comparisons were collected adjacent to the clinical examination. By the statistical method used for evaluation of the pairs of ordinal data presence of systematic disagreement was identified and measured separately from additional individual variations.

Results

The validation process resulted in a revised FB(2.0) that meets the requirements of good construct and content validity. The professionals’ ICF-classifications of the patients’ problems disagreed with the patients’ assessments on the FB(2.0); the percentage agreements ranged from 18% to 51%. The main reason was that the practitioners systematically underestimated the patients’ levels of problems but the different professionals contributed also to a large individual variability (noise) in assessment.

Conclusions

This study presents an ICF-based validated self-report questionnaire, The FB, to be used for identifying and describing pain-related problems with current functioning, activities and quality-of-life as perceived by patients suffering from long-term pain. The strong evidences of underestimation of the patients’ problems and the variability in the professionals’ ICF-classifications demonstrated the importance of describing the patient’s problems both from the patient’s and the professional’s perspective beneficial for the patient’s rehabilitation.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Norrefalk and Svensson; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Breivik H, Collett B, Ventafridda V, Cohen R, Gallagher D: Survey of persistent pain in Europe: prevalence, impact on daily life, and treatment. Eur J Pain 2006, 10:287-333.
• [2]Pain Proposal: Improving the current and future management of persistent pain. 2010. [A European Consensus Report] http://www.efic.org/index.asp?sub=B57HFCF6J4043I webcite
• [3]Poole H, White S, Blake C, Murphy P, Bramwell R: Depression in persistent pain patients: prevalence and measurement. Pain Pract 2009, 9:173-180.
• [4]Hasselström J, Liu-Palmgren J, Rasjo-Wraak G: Prevalence of pain in general practice. Eur J Pain 2002, 6:375-385.
• [5]Mäntyselkä P, Kumpusalo E, Ahonen R, Kumpusalo A, Kauhanen J, Viinamäki H, Halonen P, Takala J: Pain as a reason to visit the doctor: a study in Finnish primary health care. Pain 2001, 89:175-180.
• [6]Norrefalk JR, Littwold-Poljo A, Ryhle L, Jansen GB: Effect on work ability after team evaluation of functioning regarding pain, self-rated disability, and work ability assessment. J Multidiscip Healthc 2010, 3:155-159.
• [7]Turk DC, Rudy TE: Persistent pain and the injured worker. J Occup Rehabil 1991, 1:159-179.
• [8]Lund I, Lundeberg T, Kowalski J, Sandberg L, Norrbrink Budh C, Svensson E: Evaluation of variations in sensory and pain threshold assessments by electrocutaneous stimulation. Physiother Theory Pract 2005, 21:81-92.
• [9]Scott PJ, Huskisson EC: Measurement of functional capacity with visual analogue scales. Rheumatol Rehabil 1977, 16:257-259.
• [10]Main CJ: The modified somatic perception questionnaire (MSPQ). J Psychosom Res 1983, 27:503-514.
• [11]Salen BA, Spangfort EV, Nygren AL, Nordemar R: The disability rating index: an instrument for the assessment of disability in clinical settings. J Clin Epidemiol 1994, 47:1423-1435.
• [12]Kerns RD, Turk DC, Rudy TE: The West Haven-Yale multidimensional pain inventory (WHYMPI). Pain 1985, 23:345-356.
• [13]Turk DC, Rudy TE: Toward an empirically derived taxonomy of persistent pain patients: integration of psychological assessment data. J Consult Clin Psychol 1988, 56:233-238.
• [14]Bergström G, Jensen IB, Bodin L, Linton SJ, Nygren AL, Carlsson SG: Reliability and factor structure of the multidimensional pain inventory – Swedish language version (MPI-S). Pain 1998, 75:101-110.
• [15]Zigmond AS, Snaith RP: The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1983, 67:361-370.
• [16]Nyberg V, Sanne H, Sjölund BH: Swedish quality registry for pain rehabilitation: purpose, design, implementation and characteristics of referred patients. J Rehabil Med 2011, 43:50-57.
• [17]Cieza A, Stucki G: The international classification of functioning disability and health: its development process and content validity. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 2008, 44:303-313.
• [18]ICF Checklist. 2003. http://www.who.int/classifications/icfchecklist.pdf webcite
• [19]Stucki G, Kostanjsek N, Üstün B, Cieza A: ICF-based classification and measurement of functioning. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 2008, 44:315-328.
• [20]Svensson E: Analysis of systematic and random differences between paired ordinal categorical data. Göteborg: PhD Dissertation, Göteborg University; 1993.
• [21]Kirshner B, Guyatt G: A methodological framework for assessing health indices. J Chron Dis 1985, 38:27-36.
• [22]Rauch A, Cieza A, Stucki G: How to apply international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF) for rehabilitation management in clinical practice. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 2008, 44:329-342.
• [23]Grill E, Quittan M, Huber OE, Boldt C, Stucki G: Identification of relevant ICF categories by health professionals in the acute hospital. Disabil Rehabil 2005, 27:437-445.
• [24]Stucki G, Cieza A: The international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF) in physical and rehabilitation medicine. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 2008, 44:299-302.
• [25]Cieza A, Ewert T, Üstün TB, Chatterji S, Kostanjsek N, Stucki G: Development of ICF core sets for patients with chronic conditions. J Rehab Med 2004, 44(suppl):9-11.
• [26]Prodinger B, Salzberger T, Stucki G, Stamm T, Cieza A: Measuring functioning in people with fibromyalgia (FM) based on the international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF) – A psychometric analysis. Pain Pract 2012, 12:255-265. 10.1111/j.1533-2500.2011.00488.x
• [27]Cieza A, Stucki G, Weigl M, Kullman L, Stoll T, Kamen L, Kostanjsek N, Walsh N: ICF core sets for chronic widespread pain. J Rehabil Med 2004, 44(suppl):63-68.
• [28]Cieza A, Kirchberger I, Biering-Sorensen F, Baumberger M, Charlifue S, Post MW, Campbell R, Kovindha A, Ring H, Sinnott A, Kostanjsek N, Stucki G: ICF core sets for individuals with spinal cord injury in the long-term context. Spinal Cord 2010, 48:305-312. 10.1038/sc.20098.183
• [29]The Swedish social insurance agency and the World Health Organization: Klassifikation av funktionstillstånd, funktionshinder och hälsa. The Swedish version of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Stockholm; Socialstyrelsen: World Health Organization; 2003:4. (ISBN: 91-7201-755-4)
• [30]Svensson E, Holm S: Separation of systematic and random differences in ordinal rating scales. Stat Med 1994, 13:2437-2453.
• [31]Svensson E, Starmark J-E, Ekholm S, von Essen C, Johansson A: Analysis of interobserver disagreement in the assessment of subarachnoid blood and acute hydrocephalus on CT scans. Neurol Res 1996, 18:487-494.
• [32]Berntson L, Svensson E: Pain assessment in children with JCA; a matter of scale and rater. Acta Paediatr 2001, 90:1131-1136.
• [33]Bombardier C, Tugwell P: Methodological considerations in functional assessment. J Rheumatol 1987, 14(suppl 15):6-10.
• [34]Svensson E: Concordance between ratings using different scales for the same variable. Stat Med 2000, 19:3483-3496.
• [35]Svensson E, Schillberg B, Kling AM, Nyström B: The balanced inventory for spinal disorders. The validity of a disease specific questionnaire for evaluation of outcomes in patients with various spinal disorders. Spine 2009, 34:1976-1983.
• [36]Svensson E: Validity. In Encyclopaedic Companion to Medical Statistics. 2nd edition. Edited by Everitt BS, Palmer CR. Chichester: Wiley; 2010:470-471.
• [37]Wahlström H: Nonparametric tests for comparing two treatments by using ordinal data. PhD dissertation. Örebro University, University Library; 2004. http://www.ub.oru.se webcite
• [38]Stevens SS: On the theory of scales of measurement. Science 1946, 103:677-680.
• [39]Stevens SS: On the averaging of data. Science 1955, 121:113-116.
• [40]Siegel S, Castellan NJ: Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. 2nd edition. New York: McGraw Hill; 1988.
• [41]Dybkaer R, Jorgensen K: Measurement, value and scale. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 1989, 49(suppl 194):69-76.
• [42]Merbitz C, Morris J, Grip JC: Ordinal scales and foundations of misinference. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1989, 70:308-312.
• [43]Svensson E: Guidelines to statistical evaluation of data from rating scales and questionnaires. J Rehab Med 2001, 33:47-48.
• [44]Svensson E: Different ranking approaches defining association and agreement measures of paired ordinal data. Stat Med 2012, 31:3104-3117.
• [45]Avdic A, Svensson E: Svensson method 1. 1ed edition. 2010. [Interactive software supporting Svensson’s method] Accessed from http://www.oru.se/hh/Elisabeth_Svensson/Svenssons_method webcite. Örebro
• [46]Svensson E, Avdic A: Guidelines to calculation by the free software and interpretation of the measures of disagreement applied to reliability studies (homepage on the internet). Available from http://www.oru.se/hh/Elisabeth_Svensson/Svenssons_method webcite
• [47]Svensson E: Application of a rank-invariant method to evaluate reliability of ordered categorical assessments. J Epidemiol Biostatistics 1998, 3:403-409.
• [48]Svensson E, Schillberg B, Kling AM, Nyström B: Reliability of the balanced inventory for spinal disorders, a questionnaire for evaluation of outcomes in patients with various spinal disorders. J Spinal Disord Tech 2012, 25:196-204. 10.1097/BSD.0b013e31821534da
• [49]Sonn U, Svensson E: Measures of individual and group changes in ordered categorical data: application to the ADL Staircase. Scand J Rehab Med 1997, 29:233-242.
• [50]Svensson E: Ordinal invariant measures for individual and group changes in ordered categorical data. Stat Med 1998, 17:2923-2936.
• [51]Svensson E, Starmark JE: Evaluation of individual and group changes in social outcome after aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage: a long-term follow-up study. J Rehab Med 2002, 34:251-259.
• [52]Svensson E: Analysis of the inter-observer reliability of subjective assessments concerning the evaluation of the convenience of a new device for subcutaneous injections of hGH-One.click® Serono Nordic, Report. 2003.